THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 


.4? 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


Five  volumes,  IZmo,  with  maps  and  plans. 

THE  COLONIAL  ERA.— By  Rev.  GEORGE  P.  FISHER, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  Hietory  in 
Yale  University.  $1.25. 

THE  FRENCH  WAR  AND  THE  REVOLUTION.-By 
WILLIAM  M.  SLOANE,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  in 
Princeton  University.  $1.25. 

THE  MAKING  OF  THE  NATION.-By  Gen.  FRANCIS 
A.  WALKER,  President  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute 
of  Technology.  $1.25. 

THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD. -By  JOHN  W.  BURGESS,  Pro 
fessor  of  Hietory,  Political  Science,  and  International 
Law  in  Columbia  University.  $1.75. 

THE  CIVIL  WAR  AND  RECONSTRUCTION.— By  JOHN 
W.  BURGESS,  Professor  of  History,  Political  Science,  and 
International  Law  in  Columbia  University.  In  Press. 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


THE    MIDDLE    PERIOD 


1817-1858 


BY 

JOHN  W.  BURGESS,  PH.D.,  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    POLITICAL    SCIENCE    AND     CONSTITUTIONAL    LAW,   AND    DEAN    OP 

THE    FACULTY    OF    POLITICAL    SCIENCE,    IN    COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


WITH  MAPS 

• 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1897 


£33 


COPYRIGHT,   1897,   BY 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


TROW  DIRECTORY 

PRINTING  AND  BOOKBINDING  COMPANY 
NEW  YORK 


To  the  memory 

of 
my  former  teacher,  colleague,  and  friend, 

JULIUS  HAWLEY  SEELYE, 

philosopher,  theologian,  statesman,  and  educator, 

this  volume  is  reverently 

and  affectionately 

inscribed 


PREFACE 


THERE  is  no  more  serious  and  delicate  task  in 
literature  and  morals  than  that  of  writing  the  history 
of  the  United  States  from  1816  to  1860.  The  periods 
which  precede  this  may  be  treated  without  fear  of 
arousing  passion,  prejudice,  and  resentment,  and  with 
little  danger  of  being  misunderstood.  Even  the  im- 
maculateness  of  Washington  may  be  attacked  without 
exciting  anything  worse  than  a  sort  of  uncomfortable 
admiration  for  the  reckless  courage  of  the  assailant. 
But  when  we  pass  the  year  1820,  and  especially  when 
we  approach  the  year  1860,  we  find  ourselves  in  a  dif 
ferent  world.  We  find  ourselves  in  the  midst  of  the 
ideas,  the  motives,  and  the  occurrences  which,  and  of 
the  men  who,  have,  in  large  degree,  produced  the  ani 
mosities,  the  friendships,  and  the  relations  between 
parties  and  sections  which  prevail  to-day. 

Serious  and  delicate  as  the  task  is,  however,  the  time 
has  arrived  when  it  should  be  undertaken  in  a  thor 
oughly  impartial  spirit.  The  continued  misunderstand 
ing  between  the  North  and  the  South  is  an  ever  present 
menace  to  the  welfare  of  both  sections  and  of  the  entire 
nation.  It  makes  it  almost  impossible  to  decide  any 
question  of  our  politics  upon  its  merits.  It  offers  an 


Vlll  PEEFACE 

almost  insuperable  obstacle  to  the  development  of  a 
national  opinion  upon  the  fundamental  principles  of 
our  polity.  If  we  would  clear  up  this  confusion  in 
the  common  consciousness,  we  must  do  something  to 
dispel  this  misunderstanding;  and  I  know  of  no  means 
of  accomplishing  this,  save  the  rewriting  of  our  history 
from  1816  to  1860,  with  an  open  mind  and  a  willing 
spirit  to  see  and  to  represent  truth  and  error,  and  right 
and  wrong,  without  regard  to  the  men  or  the  sections 
in  whom  or  where  they  may  appear. 

I  am  by  no  means  certain  that  I  am  able  to  do 
this.  I  am  old  enough  to  have  been  a  witness  of  the 
great  struggle  of  1861-65,  and  to  have  participated,  in 
a  small  way,  in  it.  My  early  years  were  embittered  by 
the  political  hatreds  which  then  prevailed.  I  learned 
before  my  majority  to  regard  secession  as  an  abomina 
tion,  and  its  chief  cause,  slavery,  as  a  great  evil ;  and 
I  cannot  say  that  these  feelings  have  been  much  modi 
fied,  if  any  at  all,  by  longer  experiences  and  maturer 
thought.  I  have,  therefore,  undertaken  this  work  with 
many  misgivings. 

|  Keenly  conscious  of  my  own  prejudices,  I  have  ex 
erted  my  imagination  to  the  utmost  to  create  a  picture 
in  my  own  mind  of  the  environment  of  those  who 
held  the  opposite  opinion  upon  these  fundamental 
subjects,  and  to  appreciate  the  processes  of  their  rea 
soning  under  the  influences  of  their  own  particular 
situation.  And  I  have  with  sedulous  care  avoided  ail 
the  histories  written  immediately  after  the  close  of 
the  great  contest  of  arms,  and  all  rehashes  of  them  of 
later  date.  In  fact  I  have  made  it  an  invariable  rule 


PREFACE  IX 

to  use  no  secondary  material ;  that  is,  no  material  in 
which  original  matter  is  mingled  with  somebody's  in 
terpretation  of  its  meaning.  If,  therefore,  the  facts 
in  my  narration  are  twisted  by  prejudices  and  precon 
ceptions,  I  think  I  can  assure  my  readers  that  they 
have  suffered  only  one  twist.j  I  have  also  endeavored 
to  approach  my  subject  in  a  reverent  spirit,  and  to 
deal  with  the  characters  who  made  our  history,  in  this 
almost  tragic  period,  as  serious  and  sincere  men  having 
a  most  perplexing  and  momentous  problem  to  solve, 
a  problem  not  of  their  own  making,  but  a  fatal  ir  heri- 
tance  from  their  predecessors. 

I  have  been  especially  repelled  by  the  flippant  super 
ficiality  of  the  foreign  critics  of  this  period  of  our  his 
tory,  and  their  evident  delight  in  representing  the 
professions  and  teachings  of  the  "  Free  Republic "  as 
canting  hypocrisy.  It  has  seemed  to  me  a  great  mis 
fortune  that  the  present  generation  and  future  genera 
tions  should  be  taught  to  regard  so  lightly  the  earnest 
efforts  of  wise,  true,  and  honorable  men  to  rescue  the 
country  from  the  great  catastrophe  which,  for  so  long, 
impended  over  it.  The  passionate  onesidedness  of  our 
own  writers  is  hardly  more  harmful,  and  is  certainly 
less  repulsive. 

I  recently  heard  a  distinguished  professor  of  history 
and  politics  say  that  he  thought  the  history  of  the 
United  States,  in  this  period,  could  be  truthfully  writ 
ten  only  by  a  Scotch-Irishman.  I  suppose  he  meant 
that  the  Scotch  element  in  this  ideal  historian  would 
take  the  Northern  point  of  view,  and  the  Irish  element 
the  Southern ;  but  I  could  not  see  how  this  would 


X  PREFACE 

produce  anything  more  than  another  pair  of  narratives 
from  the  old  contradictory  points  of  view ;  and  he 
did  not  explain  how  it  would. 

\  My  opinion  is,  on  the  contrary,  that  this  history 
must  be  written  by  an  American  and  a  Northerner, 
and  from  the  Northern  point  of  view — because  an 

{American  best  understands  Americans,  after  all;  be 
cause  the  victorious  party  can  be  and  will  be  more 
liberal,  generous,  and  sympathetic  than  the  vanquished  ; 
and  because  the  Northern  view  is,  in  the  main,  the 
correct  view.  |  It  will  not  improve  matters  to  concede 
that  the  South  had  right  and  the  North  might,  or, 
even,  that  both  were  equally  right  and  equally  wrong. 
Such  a  doctrine  can  only  work  injury  to  both,  and 
more  injury  to  the  South  than  to  the  North.  Chewing 
the  bitter  cud  of  fancied  wrong  produces  both  spiritual 
misery  and  material  adversity,  and  tempts  to  foolish 
and  reckless  action  for  righting  the  imagined  injustice. 
Moreover,  any  such  doctrine  is  false,  and  acquiescence 
in  it,  however  kindly  meant,  is  weak,  and  can  have 
no  other  effect  than  the  perpetuation  of  error  and 
misunderstanding.  The  time  has  come  when  the  men 
of  the  South  should  acknowledge  that  they  were  in 
error  in  their  attempt  to  destroy  the  Union,  and  it 
is  unmanly  in  them  not  to  do  so.  When  they  appealed 
the  great  question  from  the  decision  at  the  ballot- 
box  to  the  "trial  by  battle,"  their  leaders  declared, 
over  and  over  again,  in  calling  their  followers  to  arms, 
that  the  ' '  God  of  battles "  would  surely  give  the 
victory  to  the  right.  In  the  great  movements  of  the 
world's  history  this  is  certainly  a  sound  philosophy, 


PREFACE  XI 

and  they  should  have  held  to  it  after  their  defeat. 
Their  recourse  to  the  crude  notion  that  they  had 
succumbed  only  to  might  was  thus  not  only  a  bitter, 
false,  and  dangerous  consolation,  but  it  was  a  stultifica 
tion  of  themselves  when  at  their  best  as  men  and  heroes. 
While,  therefore,  great  care  has  been  taken,  in  the 
following  pages,  to  attribute  to  the  Southern  leaders 
and  the  Southern  people  sincerity  of  purpose  in  their 
views  and  their  acts,  while  their  ideas  and  their  reason 
ing  have  been,  I  think,  duly  appreciated,  and  patiently 
explained,  while  the  right  has  been  willingly  acknowl 
edged  to  them  and  honor  accorded  them  whenever  and 
wherever  they  have  had  the  right  and  have  merited 
honor,  and  while  unbounded  sympathy  for  personal  suf 
fering  and  misfortune  has  been  expressed,  still  not  one 
scintilla  of  justification  for  secession  and  rebellion  must 
be  expected.  The  South  must  acknowledge  its  error  as 
well  as  its  defeat  in  regard  to  these  things,  and  that, 
too,  not  with  lip  service,  but  from  the  brain  and  the 
heart  and  the  manly  will,  before  any  real  concord  in 
thought  and  feeling,  any  real  national  brotherhood,  can 
be  established.  This  is  not  too  much  to  demand,  simply 
because  it  is  right,  and  nothing  can  be  settled,  as  Mr. 
Lincoln  said,  until  it  is  settled  right.  Any  interpreta 
tion  of  this  period  of  American  history  which  does  not 
demonstrate  to  the  South  its  error  will  be  worthless, 
simply  because  it  will  not  be  true ;  and  unless  we  are 
men  enough  to  hear  and  accept  and  stand  upon  the 
truth,  it  is  useless  to  endeavor  to  find  a  bond  of  real 
union  between  us.  In  a  word,  the  conviction  of  the 
South  of  its  error  in  secession  and  rebellion  is  absolutely 


Xll  PREFACE 

indispensable  to  the  establishment  of  national  cordiality  ; 
and  the  history  of  this  period  which  fails  to  do  this 
will  fail  in  accomplishing  one  of  the  highest  works  of 
history,  the  reconciliation  of  men  to  the  plans  of  Provi 
dence  for  their  perfection. 

I  have  not,  in  the  following  pages,  undertaken  to 
treat  all  of  the  events  of  our  experience  from  1816 
to  1860.  The  space  allowed  me  would  not  admit  of 
that.  And  even  if  it  had,  I  ^still  would  have  selected 
only  those  events  which,  in  my  opinion,  are  significant 
of  our  progress  in  civilization,  and,  as  I  am  writing 
a  political  history,  only  those  which  are  significant  of 
our  progress  in  political  civilization.  The  truthful  re 
cord,  connection,  and  interpretation  of  such  events  is 
what  I  call  history  in  the  highest  sense,  as  distinguished 
from  chronology,  narrative,  and  romance.  Both  neces 
sity  and  philosophy  have  confined  me  to  these.  *! 

I  cannot  close  these  prefatory  sentences  without  a 
word  of  grateful  acknowledgment  to  my  friend  and 
colleague,  Dr.  Harry  A.  Gushing,  for  the  important 
services  which  he  has  rendered  me  in  the  preparation 
of  this  work. 

JOHN  W.  BURGESS. 

323  WEST  FIFTY-SEVENTH  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 
January  22,  1897. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

THE  NATIONALIZATION  OF  THE  OLD  REPUBLICAN  PARTY,  .      1 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  ACQUISITION  OF  FLORIDA, 19 

CHAPTER  III. 
.^SLAVERY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  BEFORE  1820,         .        .    39 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  CREATION  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  MISSOURI,      .    61 

CHAPTER  V. 
THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  PARTICULARISTIC  REACTION,        .  108 

CHAPTER  VI. 
THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1824,        .        .        .        .131 


XIV  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   VII. 

PAGE 

THE  DIVISION  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY,        .        .        .  145 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

DEMOCRATIC    OPPOSITION    TO    INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS 
AND  PROTECTION, 1G6 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  UNITED  STATES  BANK  AND  THE   PRESIDENTIAL  CON 
TEST  OF  1832, 190 

CHAPTER  X. 
NULLIFICATION, 210 

CHAPTER  XI. 
ABOLITION,  .  242 


CHAPTER   XII. 

THE   BANK,   THE   SUB-TREASURY,   AND  PARTY  DEVELOP 
MENT  BETWEEN  1832  AND  1842, 278 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
/     TEXAS, .289 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
OREGON, 311 


CONTENTS  XV 

CHAPTER   XV. 

PAGE 

THE   "  RE-ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS  AND   THE   RE-OCCUPA 
TION  OF  OREGON," 318 

CHAPTER   XVI. 
THE  WAII  WITH  MEXICO, ' .        .327 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  ORGANIZATION  OP  OREGON  TERRITORY  AND  THE  COM 
PROMISE  OF  1830, 340 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  EXECUTION  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW,  AND  THE 
ELECTION  OF  1852, 3C5 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE,      .       .        .  380 

CHAPTER  XX. 
THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS, 407 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
THE  DRED  SCOTT  CASE,         ...        t        ...  449 

CHAPTER   XXII. 
THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS  CONCLUDED,  .  460 


XVI  CONTENTS 

APPENDIX   I. 

PAGE 

THE  ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  DETAIL,  1820-1856,     .        .        .  475 

APPENDIX   II. 

THE  CABINETS  OF  MONROE,  ADAMS,  JACKSON,  VAN  BUREN, 
HARRISON,  TYLER,  POLK,  TAYLOR,  FILLMOUE,  PIERCE, 

AND  BUCHANAN-1816-1858, 485 


CHRONOLOGY, 491 

BIBLIOGRAPHY, 497 

INDEX,  503 


LIST  OF  MAPS. 

PACING 
PAGE 

FLORIDA  AT  THE  TIME  OP  ACQUISITION 32 

TEXAS  AT  THE  TIME  OF  ANNEXATION,  .  .  .  .  296 
OREGON  AS  DETERMINED  BY  THE  TREATY  OF  1846,  .  .  312 
CALIFORNIA  AND  NEW  MEXICO  IN  1850,  .  .  .  .336 
NEBRASKA  AND  KANSAS,  1854-1861, 468 


All 


THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE  NATIONALIZATION   OF  THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN 
PARTY 

General  Character  of  the  Acts  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress— Madi 
son's  Message  of  December  5th,  1815 — Change  in  the  Prin 
ciples  of  the  Republican  Party— The  United  States  Bank  Act 
of  1816— Report  of  the  Bank  Bill  by  Mr.  Calhoun— Mr.  Cal- 
houn's  Argument  in  Favor  of  the  Bill — Webster's  Objections 
to  the  Bank  Bill- -Mr.  Clay's  Support  of  the  Bank  Bill— Pas 
sage  of  the  Bank  Bill  by  the  House  of  Representatives — The 
Passage  of  the  Bank  Bill  by  the  Senate— The  United  States 
Bank  of  1816  a  Southern  Measure— The  Tariff  Bill  Framed  by 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means— The  Tariff  Bill  Reported 
— The  Character  of  the  Tariff  Bill — Mr.  Calhoun's  Speech 
upon  the  Tariff  Bill -The  Passage  of  the  Tariff  Bill  — The 
Army  and  Navy  Bill — The  Bill  for  National  Improvements — 
Mr.  Calhoun's  Advocacy  of  this  Bill — The  Opposition  to  the 
Internal  Improvements  Bill — Passage  of  the  Bill  by  Congress 
—Veto  of  the  Bill  by  the  President— The  Failure  of  Congress 
to  Override  the  Veto. 

IT  is  no  part  of  my  task  to  relate  the  events  of  the 
War  of  1812-15.  That  has  already  heen  sufficiently 
done  in  the  preceding  volume  of  this  series.  I  take  up 
the  threads  of  the  narrative  at  the  beginning  of  the  year 
1816,  and  my  problem  in  this  chapter  will  be  to  expound 
the  acts  and  policies  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress  in  the 
light  of  the  experiences  of  that  War. 


2  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Those  acts   and   policies  were   shaped   and   adopted 

under  the  influence  of  those  experiences,  and  this  influ- 

Gei  erai   enGQ  was  so  Pred°minant,  at  the  moment,  in 

character    of  the  minds  of  the  leading  men  in  the  Govern- 

the  acts  of  the  n    , ,  , 

Fourteenth  ment  and  throughout  the  country  as  to  ex 
clude,  or  at  least  to  overbalance,  all  other 
influences.  This  is  especially  manifest  in  the  attitude 
of  the  statesmen  of  the  slave-holding  Commonwealths, 
and  most  especially  in  the  attitude  of  their  great  leader, 
Mr.  Calhoun,  who  was  the  chief  champion  of  some  of 
the  most  national  measures  voted  by  that  Congress.  A 
clear  appreciation  of  his  views  and  his  acts  at  that  period 
of  his  career  will  enable  us  far  better  than  anything 
else  to  understand  the  terrible  seriousness  of  the  slavery 
question,  which  subsequently  drove  him  into  lines  of 
thought  and  action  so  widely  divergent  from  those  upon 
which  he  set  out  in  early  life. 

It  was  the  President  himself,  however,  one  of  the 
chief  founders  of  the  "  States'-rights  "  party,  Mr.  Madi 
son,  who  set  the  direction  toward  centralization  in  the 
Congressional  legislation  of  1815-17.  In  his  annual 
Madison's  message  of  December  5th,  1815,  he  recom- 
DecemDe/sth!  mended  the  increase  and  better  organization 
isis.  Of  the  army  an(j  the  navy,  the  enlargement 

of  the  existing  Military  Academy  and  the  founding  of 
such  academies  in  the  different  sections  of  the  country, 
the  creation  of  a  national  currency,  the  protection  of 
manufactures,  the  construction  of  roads  and  canals,  and 
the  establishment  of  a  national  university. 

This  is  a  very  different  political  creed  from  that 
promulgated  by  President  Jefferson  when  the  Republi 
can  party  first  gained  possession  of  the  Government  at 
Washington.  Then,  decrease  in  all  the  elements  of 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  central  Government,  and 
careful  maintenance  of  all  the  rights  and  powers  of  the 


THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN   PARTY  3 

"  States,"  were  recommended  and  urged  upon  the  atten 
tion  of  the  national  lawgivers. 

From  a  "  States'-sovereignty  "  party  in  1801,  the  Re 
publican  party  had  manifestly  become  a  strong  national 
party  in  1816  ;  that  is,  if  we  are  to  take  the  change  in 
two  Presidential  messages,  to  which  we  have  of^helejJub- 
referred,  as  containing  the  political  prin-  ^an  party, 
ciples  of  that  party  at  these  two  periods  of  its  existence. 

As  the  Congress  of  1801  showed  itself,  in  its  legisla 
tion,  to  be  in  substantial  accord  with  President  Jeffer 
son's  views  and  sentiments,  so  did  the  Congress  of  1815 
manifest,  in  its  legislation,  the  same  general  harmony 
with  the  views  and  sentiments  of  President  Madison. 
In  order  that  the  latter  part  of  this  statement  may  be 
set  down  as  an  established  fact  of  history,  we  will  review 
with  some  particularity  the  two  cardinal  acts  of  this 
Congress — the  United  States  Bank  Act  and  the  Tariff 
Act. 

So  soon  as  the  reading  of  President  Madison's  message 
before  the  House  of  Representatives  was  completed,  that 
body  resolved  to  refer  that  part  of  the  mes 
sage  which  related  to  the  establishment  of  an  states  UBank 
uniform  national  currency  to  a  select  com-  Actof1816- 
mittee.  The  committee  chosen  was  composed  of  Mr. 
Calhoun,  Mr.  Macon,  Mr.  Pleasants,  Mr.  Tucker,  Mr. 
Robertson,  Mr.  Hopkinson,  and  Mr.  Pickering.  The 
first  five  of  these  gentlemen  were  from  Commonwealths 
south  of  the  Pennsylvania  .line,  and  only  two,  therefore, 
from  what  began  now  to  be  called  the  "non-slave-holding 
States."  In  other  words,  it  was  a  Southern  committee, 
and  the  great  South  Carolinian  was  its  chairman.  It  is, 
therefore,  just  to  regard  the  bill  which  this  committee 
brought  in,  and  the  arguments  with  which  they  sup 
ported  it,  as  containing  the  views  and  the  sentiments  of 
the  leading  Southern  Republicans  in  the  House. 


4  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

This  committee  came  speedily  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  nationalization  of  the  monetary  system  was  the  most 
Report  of  pressing  need  of  the  country,  and  within  a 
bye  M?  cli1  month  from  the  date  of  the  appointment  of 
houn.  j£s  members  the  chairman  of  the  committee 

reported  a  bill  for  the  creation  of  an  United  States 
Bank,  a  mammoth  national  banking  corporation,  which 
should  have  a  capital  of  thirty-five  millions  of  dollars  ; 
in  which  the  central  Government  should  own  one-fifth 
of  the  stock  and  be  represented  by  one-fifth  of  the 
directors ;  the  president  of  which  should  always  be 
selected  from  among  the  Government's  directors ;  the 
demand  notes  and  bills  of  which  should  be  received  in 
all  payments  to  the  United  States ;  and  the  chartered 
privileges  of  which  should  be  made  a  monopoly  for 
twenty  years. 

^ln  his  great  argument  in  support  of  the  bill,  delivered 
on  February  26th,  Mr.  Calhoun  dismissed  at  the  out- 
Mr,  cai-  set  anJ  consideration  of  the  constitutional- 
menfinafagvo;  %  of  the  bill«  That  is>  ^  simply  assumed 
of  the  Bill.  ft&t  Congress  had  the  power  to  pass  the  bill, 
and  declared  that  the  public  mind  was  entirely  made  up 
and  settled  upon  that  point. 

Only  five  years  before  this,  even  the  national-minded 
Clay  had  pronounced  the  dictum  that  Congress  had  no 
power  to  grant  a  national  bank  charter,  and  the  fact 
that  Congress  then  declined  to  grant  such  a  charter  is 
good  evidence  that  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
country  held  the  same  view.  There  can  be  little  ques 
tion  that  the  Eepublican  party,  down  to  1812,  regarded 
the  establishment  of  an  United  States  bank  by  Con 
gress  as  an  usurpation  of  power  not  granted  by  the  Con 
stitution. 

Five  years  constitute  a  short  period  of  time  for  the 
accomplishment  of  so  important  a  change  in  the  public 


THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN   PAKTY  5 

opinion.  Five  years  of  ordinary  experience  would  not 
have  produced  it.  It  was,  without  doubt,  the  strain 
brought  upon  the  finances  of  the  country  by  the  neces 
sities  of  the  War  that  had  developed  a  powerful  na 
tional  opinion  upon  the  subject  of  the  financial  system 
of  the  country. 

Mr.  Calhoun  also  declined  to  discuss  the  question 
whether  banks  were  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  ' '  pub 
lic  liberty  and  prosperity."  He  assumed,  here  again, 
that  public  experience  had  settled  that  question,  and 
said  that  such  an  inquiry  was  now  purely  metaphysical. 
This  statement  is  certainly  prime  evidence  that  the 
practical  experiences,  made  in  conducting  the  Govern 
ment  under  the  pressure  of  war,  had  about  knocked  the 
metaphysics  of  the  year  1800  out  of  the  Republican 
party,  and  had  led  the  party  on  to  a  much  more  positive 
stage  of  political  opinion. 

Mr.  Calhoun  furthermore  dismissed  the  question 
whether  a  "national  bank  would  be  favorable  to  the 
administration  of  the  finances  of  the  Government," 
since  there  was  not  enough  doubt,  he  said,  in  the  public 
mind  upon  that  point  to  warrant  a  discussion  of  it. 

He  declared,  finally,  that  the  only  questions  which 
demanded  consideration  were  those  relative  to  the  ex 
isting  disorders  of  the  currency,  and  the  efficiency  of  a 
national  bank  in  working  their  cure.  Upon  these  two 
points  he  was  distinct,  decided,  and  thoroughly  national. 
He  said  that  the  Constitution  had  without  doubt  placed 
the  monetary  system  of  the  country  entirely  within  the 
control  of  Congress;  that  the  "States"  had  usurped 
the  power  of  making  money  by  chartering  banks  of  issue 
in  the  face  of  the  constitutional  provision  forbidding  the 
"States"  to  emit  bills  of  credit ;  that  the  two  hundred 
millions  of  dollars  of  irredeemable  bank-notes,  paper, 
and  credits,  issued  by  these  banks,  were  the  cause  of  the 


6  THE   MIDDLE   PEKJOD 

financial  disorders  of  the  country  ;  and  that  the  remedy 
for  this  condition  of  things  was,  in  his  opinion,  to  be 
found  in  a  great  specie-paying  national  bank,  sustained 
by  the  power  of  the  general  Government  in  the  work  of 
bringing  such  a  pressure  upon  these  "  State  "  banks  as 
would  force  them  either  to  pay  specie  or  go  into  liquida 
tion.  This  was  clear,  generous,  and  patriotic.  No  one 
made  a  fairer  statement  of  the  case,  and  no  one  advo 
cated  a  more  national  remedy  in  its  treatment. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  Webster  who,  at  this  time, 
appeared  narrow  and  particularistic.  He  objected  to  the 
large  amount  of  the  capital,  and  to  the  stock 
objecetion8eto  feature  of  the  proposed  bank,  and  expressed 
alarm  at  the  proposition  to  place  it  under  such 
strong  governmental  control.  He  thought  that  the  bills 
and  paper  of  the  "  State"  banks  would  be  good  enough, 
if  the  general  Government  would  only  force  them  to  re 
deem  their  currency  in  specie  by  refusing  to  accept  for 
Government  dues  the  bills  of  banks  which  did  not  pay 
specie  on  demand. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  Webster's  attitude  from 
the  point  of  view  of  political  economy,  it  was  certainly, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  political  science,  the  attitude  of 
a  "  States'-rights  "  man  rather  than  that  of  a  nationalist. 
Webster  did  not,  however,  call  the  constitutionality  of 
the  bill  in  question.  That  was  conceded  upon  all  sides. 

The  friends  of  the  measure  felt  more  anxiety  in  regard 
to  Mr.  Clay.  He  had,  only  five  years  before,  as  we  have 
seen,  pronounced  a  similar  bill  unconstitutional  in  his 
opinion,  and  he  was  now  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  with 
all  the  power  over  the  procedure  in  the  House  which  that 
position  involved.  It  was  generally  felt  that  the  fate  of 
the  measure  would  be  largely  determined  by  his  attitude 
toward  it. 

Mr.  Clay  did  not  leave  the  House  long  in  doubt  con- 


THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN   PARTY  7 

cerning  his  views.  lie  quickly  revealed  and  avowed 
that  noted  change  of  opinion  upon  this  subject,  which  has 
been  commonly  accounted  one  of  his  great- 
est  inconsistencies,  but  which  may  be  very  support  ofathe 
properly  considered  as  simply  manifesting 
that  growth  in  patriotism  and  national  spirit  experienced 
by  almost  all  the  leading  men  of  the  country,  outside  o! 
New  England,  in  consequence  of  the  vicissitudes  of  the 
period  of  war  under  which  the  nation  suffered  between 
the  dates  of  Mr.  Clay's  two  utterances.  He  frankly 
confessed  that  he  had  changed  his  opinion,  and  explained 
the  change  by  saying  that  the  power  of  Congress  in  re 
spect  to  the  matter  was  contained  in  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  conferred  upon  Congress  the  author 
ity  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying 
the  powers  of  the  Government  into  operation  ;  that,  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  words  "  necessary  and  proper/' 
reference  must  always  be  had  to  existing  circumstances  ; 
that,  when  conditions  change,  the  interpretation  must 
be  so  modified  as  to  meet  and  satisfy  such  change  ;  and 
that  the  conditions  obtaining  in  the  country  in  1816 
were  so  changed  from  those  obtaining  in  1811  as  to  re 
quire  the  enlarged  interpretation  of  the  powers  of  Con 
gress  under  this  clause  upon  the  subject  of  the  monetary 
system  of  the  country. 

The  eloquence  and  the  influence  of  Mr.  Clay  counted 
heavily  in  favor  of  the  measure,  and  it  was  passed  by  a 
substantial  majority  of  votes.  In  fact,  the 

.    .,  .  Passage    of 

privileges  of  the  proposed  Bank  had  been  in-  the  Bank  Bill 

?  ,  by  the  House 

creased  by  amendment  during  the  progress  of  Represent- 
of  the  bill  through  the  House.  The  Bank  and  ative8' 
its  branches  were  made  the  depositories  of  the  funds  of 
the  Government.  This  great  advantage  was,  at  least,  a 
substantial  offset  to  the  other  modifications  of  the  original 
bill,  whereby  the  clauses  requiring  that  the  president  of 


8  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

the  Bank  should  always  be  chosen  from  among  the  Gov 
ernment  directors,  and  reserving  to  Congress  the  power 
to  permit  a  temporary  suspension  of  specie  payment  by 
the  Bank,  were  stricken  out. 

During  the  passage  of  the  bill  through  the  Senate 
only  a  single  senator  expressed  any  doubts  of  its  con- 
The  passage  stitutionality,  Mr.  Wells,  of  Delaware.  Mr. 
BmthethrouSh  Wells  did  not  denJ  the  Power  of  Congress  to 
the  senate.  charter  a  national  bank,  but  simply  contended 
that  the  particular  Bank  proposed  in  the  bill  exceeded 
what  was  "necessary  and  proper"  for  carrying  into 
effect  the  powers  of  Congress,  and  was  therefore  uncon 
stitutional.  On  the  other  hand,  Senators  Barbour,  of 
Virginia,  Taylor,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Bibb,  of  Geor 
gia,  supported  the  measure,  both  in  principle  and  in 
details,  and  carried  it  with  a  larger  relative  majority 
through  the  Senate  than  it  had  received  in  the  House. 

The  United  States  Bank  of  1816  was  thus  a  Southern 

measure,  and  Calhoun  was  its  chief  author.     It  was  in 

principle  a  great  national  measure,  and  its 

The  United  ,  •          ,       >,  . -, 

states    Bank  creation  by  Congress  is  strong  evidence  of 

of    1816     a, i  ,1    •  ,•          ,.. 

southern  the  great  growth  in  national  opinion  and  sen 
timent  throughout  the  country,  away  from 
the  national  indifference  of  the  Jeffersonian  metapol- 
itics  of  1800. 

A  review  of  the  Tariff  Act  of  1816  will  bring  us  to  the 
The  Tariff  of  same  conclusions  concerning  the  great  nation- 
1816.  alizing  influence  of  the  War. 

The  rate  of  duty  upon  the  principal  articles  of  im 
ported  goods  was,  before  the  War,  twelve  and  one-half 
per  centum  ad  valorem.  From  a  rate  of  five  per  cen 
tum  upon  these  articles,  imposed  by  the  first  Customs 
Act,  that  of  July,  1789,  the  duty  had  been  increased  by 
about  a  dozen  acts,  passed  by  both  Federal  and  Repub 
lican  Congresses,  until,  in  1812,  it  had  reached  the 


THE   OLD    REPUBLICAN   PARTY 

above-mentioned  per  centum.  Twelve  and  one-half  per 
centum  was,  as  a  fact,  nothing  more  than  a  revenue 
duty,  and  was  intended  for  nothing  more  by  the  party 
in  power  at  that  date. 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  War  double  duties  were  im 
posed  by  the  Act  of  July  1st,  1812,  as  a  war  measure, 
that  is,  as  a  measure  for  obtaining  additional  revenue  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  War.  It  was  not  intended  as  a 
measure  for  the  protection  of  manufacturers.  This  Act 
was  to  expire  in  one  year,  at  the  farthest,  after  the  con 
clusion  of  peace  with  England. 

The  ratifications  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  were  ex 
changed  on  February  17th,  1815.  At  the  meeting  of 
Congress,  in  December,  1815,  the  war  duties  were, 
therefore,  still  in  force,  but  the  Act  establishing  them 
would  expire  by  its  own  limitation  in  less  than  three 
months.  This  Congress  was  obliged,  therefore,  to  deal 
with  the  tariff  anew. 

The  recommendations  of  the  President  in  regard  to 
the  matter  were  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  House 
on  Ways  and  Means,  the  regular  revenue 

T  h  e     Bi  1 1 

committee.  At  that  moment  this  commit-  framed  by  the 
tee  was  composed  of  seven  members,  four  on°  ways*  and 
from  Commonwealths  south  of  Maryland,  Means- 
and  three  from  those  north  of  Maryland.  Mr.  Lowndes, 
of  South  Carolina,  was  its  chairman.  It  is  fair,  there 
fore,  to  call  it  a  Southern  committee,  and  to  regard  the 
bill  which  it  produced  as  a  Southern  measure. 

The  committee  first  asked  for  a  continuation  of  the 
existing  duties  until  the  thirtieth  day  of  the  following 
June,  in  order  to  give  proper  time  to  mature  the  bill, 
which  request  was  voted  by  both  houses  of  Congress ;  and 
on  March  20th,  Mr.  Lowndes  announced  that  he  was 
prepared  to  report  the  draft  of  the  new  Act.  The  meas 
ure  contained  virtually  the  continuation  of  the  war 


10  THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

tariff  as  the  permanent  rule  and  policy  /in  time  of  peace. 
It  was  now  manifestly  a  protective  tariff,  and  it  was  in- 

The  Tariff  tended  to  be  such.  Mr.  Ingham  of  the  corn- 
Bin  reported.  mittee  said,,  at  the  beginning  of  the  debate 
upon  it,  that  "  its  great  primary  object  was  to  make 
such  a  modification  of  duties  upon  the  various  articles 
of  importation  as  would  give  the  necessary  and  proper 
protection  and  support  to  the  agriculture,  manufactures, 
and  commerce  of  the  country."  He  went  so  far  as  to 
say  that  revenue  considerations  ought  not  to  have  any 
influence  in  the  decision  of  the  House  upon  the  com 
mittee's  propositions. 

It  is  entirely  evident,  however,  that  the  committee 
did  not  regard  the  bill  as  proposing  advantages  for  the 

The  char-  manufacturers  only,  or  as  having  for  its  prin- 
TarTff  sin the  c^Pa^  a^m  *ne  increase  of  the  wages  of  the  em 
ployees  in  the  manufacturing  establishments, 
but  considered  it  a  great  national  measure,  a  measure 
necessary  to  the  industrial  independence  of  the  country. 
It  is  also  evident  that  the  bill  was  not  thought  by  any 
body  to  rest  upon  a  perfect  and  permanent  principle. 
Mr.  Clay  himself  said  of  it,  "that  the  object  of  pro 
tecting  manufacturers  was,  that  we  might  eventually 
get  articles  of  necessity  made  as  cheap  at  home  as  th^y 
could  be  imported,  and  thereby  to  produce  an  indepen 
dence  of  foreign  countries  ;"  that  "in  three  years  we 
could  judge  of  the  ability  of  our  establishments  to  fur 
nish  those  articles  as  cheap  as  they  were  obtained  from 
abroad,  and  could  then  legislate  with  the  lights  of  expe 
rience  ;"  and  that  "he  believed  that  three  years  would 
be  sufficient  to  place  our  manufacturers  on  this  desir 
able  footing." 

It  was  Calhoun  again,  however,  who  surpassed  them 
all  in  broadness  of  view  and  in  patriotic  devotion  to 
the  interests  of  the  nation.  The  immediate  occasion  of 


THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN    PARTY  11 

his  speech  was  a  motion  made  by  John  Randolph,  which 
seemed  to  Mr.  Calhoun  to  attack  the  principle  of  the 
bill.  He  said,  that  so  long  as  the  debate  had  been  con 
fined  to  questions  of  detail  he  had  refrained  from  join 
ing  in  it ;  but  now  that  the  general  policy  of  M  r .  c  a  i  - 
the  measure  had  been  attacked  he  felt  obliged  upoS VePTa? 
to  come  forward  in  support  of  that  policy,  iffBm- 
which  he  could  do  with  all  the  more  grace  and  sincerity 
since  his  own  private  interests  were  primarily  subserved 
by  the  advancement  of  agriculture,  as  were  those  of  his 
section.  He  began  his  argument  with  the  assertions  that 
commerce  and  agriculture  were  the  chief  sources  of  the 
wealth  of  the  country  at  the  moment,  almost  the  only 
sources,  and  that  manufactures  must  be  added  to  these 
in  order  to  accomplish  industrial  independence.  In 
proof  of  this  latter  proposition  he  referred  to  the  well- 
known  effect  of  war  between  a  maritime  power  and  the 
United  States  upon  the  prosperity  of  the  latter.  He 
simply  pointed  to  the  historic  facts  that  such  a  war  de 
stroyed  the  commerce  of  the  country  with  foreign  pow 
ers,  and  that  the  destruction  of  commerce  caused  the 
products  of  agriculture,  usually  exported  to  pay  for 
manufactured  goods  imported  from  foreign  countries, 
to  perish  in  the  hands  of  the  producers.  Domestic 
manufactures,  he  contended,  would  not  only  relieve  us 
from  dependence  upon  foreign  countries  for  manufact 
ured  goods,  but  would  create  home  markets  for  agricul 
tural  products.  Encouragement  to  manufactures  was, 
therefore,  a  sound  national,  a  truly  American,  policy. 
As  Mr.  Calhoun  proceeded  in  his  speech,  his  strong 
patriotism  became  more  manifest.  He  affirmed  that  the 
policy  of  protection  to  manufactures  was  calculated  to 
bind  more  closely  together  the  different  parts  of  our 
widely  extended  country,  since  it  would  increase  the 
mutual  dependence  of  these  different  actions  on  each 


12  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

other  in  proportion  as  it  decreased  their  dependence  on 
foreign  markets.  And  he  declared  that  he  considered 
the  production  of  this  result  to  be  the  most  fundamental 
of  all  ourv  policies,  for  the  reason  that  the  absence  of 
such  mutual  dependence  would  tend  toward  disunion, 
and  disunion  comprehended  almost  the  sum  and  sub 
stance  of  our  political  dangers,  against  which,,  there 
fore,  we  ought  to  be  perpetually  guarded. 

Calhoun  was  in  his  thirty-fifth  year  when  he  advanced 
these  views.  The  sentiments  which  they  revealed  can 
not,  therefore,  be  ascribed  to  the  enthusiasm  of  youth 
and  inexperience.  They  rested  upon  the  settled  convic 
tions  of  a  mature  man.  They  stand  in  need  of  no  com 
ment.  They  speak  for  themselves.  We  shall  search 
the  reports  of  the  debate  in  vain  for  anything  wiser,  no 
bler,  or  more  patriotic.  In  comparison  with  them  the 
views  pronounced  by  the  New  Englanders  upon  the 
subject  appear  narrow  and  selfish.  They  were  willing 
to  sacrifice  the  industrial  independence  of  the  nation  to 
their  own  interests  in  the  carrying  trade  upon  the  sea. 
Even  the  name  of  Webster  is  not  to  be  found  among  those 
who  voted  for  the  final  passage  of  the  bill.  The  major 
ity  in  its  favor  was,  however,  nearly  two  to 


of  the  Tariff  one.  In  the  Senate,  the  vote  was  nearly  four 
to  one  for  it.  Though  Southern  in  its  im 
mediate  origin,  it  certainly  had  the  support  of  the  na 
tion,  and  was  regarded  as  a  great  measure  of  national 
independence.  The  opposition  made  to  it  by  Randolph 
and  Telfair,  and  by  the  remnant  of  the  New  England 
Federalists,  was  regarded  as  unnational  and  unpatriotic. 
It  contributed  to  the  complete  disappearance  of  the 
Federal  party  from  the  arena  of  national  politics. 

This  Congress  gave,  however,  an  even  surer  test  of 
the  growth  of  the  national  spirit  among  the  people  than 
either  the  Bank  Act  or  the  Tariff  AcT.  It  was  the 


THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN   PARTY  13 

series  of  acts  for  the  increase  of  the  Army  and  the  Navy, 
and  for  their  thorough  reorganization.  The  Repub 
lican  doctrine  of  1800  was,  that  there  was  no 
need  of  a  national  army;  that  the  militias  and6  Va'vy 
of  the  Commonwealths  were  a  sufficient  mili-  I 
tary  force ;  and  that  a  standing  army  was  dangerous 
to  liberty.  By  the  Act  of  March  16th,  1802,  Congress 
fixed  the  peace  establishment  at  two  regiments  of  infan 
try,  and  one  regiment  of  artillerists,  not  more  than 
thirty-five  hundred  men.  No  increase  of  this  force  had 
been  permitted  between  1802  and  1812. 

During  the  War  of  1812-15,  the  Commonwealths  of 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut  taught 
the  nation  how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  reliance  was 
to  be  placed  upon  the  militias  of  the  Commonwealths  in 
the  defence  of  the  country  against  foreign  attack.  In 
spite  of  the  plain  provision  of  the  Constitution,  and  the 
Act  of  Congress  in  accordance  therewith,  empowering 
the  President  to  call  the  militias  of  the  Commonwealths 
into  the  service  of  the  United  States,  the  Governors  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  disputed  the  President's 
authority  in  this  respect  and  refused  compliance  with 
his  orders.  Well  might  the  President  complain  that, 
even  upon  this  most  essential  point,  the  military  organi 
zation,  the  United  States  was  not  a  nation.  With  such 
an  experience  as  this,  Congress  and  the  people  were 
thoroughly  converted  from  the  particularistic  doctrin 
ism  of  1800,  and  now  manifested  their  strong  national 
spirit  in  the  willingness  to  place  a  large  standing  mili 
tary  force  in  the  hands  of  the  central  Government  in 
times  of  peace. 

By  the  Act  of  March  3rd,  1816,  Congress  fixed  the 
peace  footing  of  the  Army  at  ten  thousand  men,  exclud 
ing  the  corps  of  engineers  ;  and  by  the  Act  of  April 
24th,  of  the  same  year,  it  reorganized,  or  rather  re- 


14  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

created,  the  general  staff,  upon  the  principle  that  the 
staff  should  be  as  complete  in  time  of  peace  as  in  time 
of  war. 

The  Navy  received  similar  attention  and  favor.  By 
the  Act  of  April  29th,  1816,  Congress  appropriated  eight 
millions  of  dollars  for  the  construction  of  nine  seventy- 
four-gun  ships,  twelve  forty-four-gun  ships,  and  three 
steam  batteries. 

Evidently  the  fear  that  the  President  would,  by  virtue 
of  his  power  as  commander-in-chief  of  a  large  standing 
army  and  navy,  declare  himself  emperor,  and  make  the 
military  and  naval  officers  his  dukes  and  counts,  had 
vanished  in  the  smoke  of  the  burned  Capitol,  and,  in 
place  of  this  silly  terror  of  crowns  and  diadems,  a  thor 
oughgoing  confidence  in  the  national  Government  had 
established  itself  in  the  brain  and  heart  of  the  people 
and  of  their  leaders. 

These  great  national  measures  occupied  the  attention 
of  Congress  to  such  a  degree,  during  the  session  of  1815- 
16,  as  to  delay  the  consideration  of  the  question  of  a  sys 
tem  of  national  internal  improvements  to  the  second 
session,  that  of  1816-17. 

At  the  opening  of  this  session,  Mr.  Calhoun,  again, 

came  forward  with  a  motion  for  the  appointment  of  a 

committee,  which  should  consider  the  ques- 

Nationai  im-  tion  of  setting  aside  the  bonus  to  be  paid  by 

provements.     the  United  states  Bank  to  the  Government 

for  its  charter,  and  the  net  annual  proceeds  received  by 
the  Government  upon  its  shares  in  the  Bank,  as  a  perma 
nent  fund  for  internal  improvements.  The  motion  was 
quickly  carried,  and  the  committee,  consisting  of  two 
members  from  the  North  and  two  from  the  South,  with 
Mr.  Calhoun  for  chairman,  was  appointed.  This  was 
December  16th,  1816.  In  a  week  from  this  date  the 
committee  presented  a  bill  providing  for  the  setting 


THE   OLD   REPUBLICAN   PAETY  15 

apart  of  the  funds  above  indicated  for  the  construction 
of  roads  and  canals. 

Mr.  Calhoun  opened  the  debate  upon  the  bill,  and 
his  speech  abounded  with  the  same  national  ideas  and 
patriotic  sentiments  which  characterized  his  arguments 
in  support  of  the  Bank  and  Tariff  measures.  After 
asserting  that  the  moment  Vas  most  opportune  for 
the  consideration  of  the  question,  on  account  of  the 
fact  that  all  party  and  sectional  feelings  had  Mr.  cai- 
given  way  to  "a  liberal  and  an  enlightened  Jja^y '"of^S 
regard  for  the  general  concerns  of  the  na-  Bl11- 
tion,"  Mr.  Calhoun  again  pronounced  his  warning  con 
cerning  the  greatest  danger  to  which  the  country  was 
exposed,  namely,  disunion,  and  declared  it  to  be  the 
highest  duty  of  American  statesmen  so  to  form  the 
policies  of  the  Government  as  to  counteract  all  tenden 
cies  toward  sectionalism  and  disunion.  He  contended 
that  from  this  point  of  view  nothing  could  be  more 
necessary  or  more  advantageous  than  a  large  national 
system  of  internal  improvements,  establishing  the  great 
lines  of  commerce  and  intercourse  for  binding  together 
all  the  parts  of  the  country  in  interests,  ideas,  and  sen 
timents. 

No  part  of  his  argument,  however,  is  so  instructive 
to  the  student  of  American  constitutional  history  as  the 
observations  upon  the  question  of  the  constitutionality 
of  the  bill.  He  said  that  he  was  no  advocate  of  refined 
reasoning  upon  the  Constitution  ;  that  "the  instrument 
was  not  intended  as  a  thesis  for  the  logician  to  exercise 
his  ingenuity  on  ;  that  it  ought  to  be  construed  with 
plain  good  sense  ;  and  that  when  so  construed  nothing 
could  be  more  express  than  the  Constitution  upon  this 
very  point."  The  clause  to  which  he  referred  was  that 
which  confers  upon  Congress  the  power  "to  levy  and 
collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  ;  to  pay  the 


16  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general 
welfare  of  the  United  States."  Mr.  Calhoun  claimed 
that  these  words  were  to  be  interpreted  as  vesting  in 
Congress  the  power  to  appropriate  money  for  the  com 
mon  defence  and  general  welfare  of  the  country  at  its 
own  discretion,  both  as  to  object  and  amount..  He  in 
sisted  that  a  generous  interpretation  of  the  power  to 
raise  and  appropriate  money  was  absolutely  required,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  placing  a  forced  con 
struction  upon  other  powers.  It  was  all  in  his  best 
strain,  and  showed  Mr.  Calhoun  still  as  the  chief  advo 
cate  of  national  union  and  national  development.  No 
other  person  seemed  to  equal  him  in  breadth  of  view 
and  purity  of  patriotism. 

The  measure  met,  however,  with  more  opposition  than 

the  Bank  Bill  or  the  Tariff  Bill  had  experienced.     Two 

The     DOST    years  °^  Peace  nad  cooled  the  ardor  of  the 

tion  to  the  in-  national   spirit   somewhat,    and   the    people 

ternal     Im-  ,  \          ,       ,      .     .  r. 

provements  were  dropping  back  into  the  narrow  spheres 

of  ordinary  life  and  business  routine. 
Moreover,  the  great  hue  and  cry  raised  by  the  dema 
gogues  and  the  press  over  the  bill,  passed  at  the  previous 
session,  changing  the  pay  of  the  members  of  Congress 
from  a  per  diem  of  six  dollars  during  attendance  to  an 
annual  salary  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  had  made  the 
members  timid  about  the  appropriation  of  money,  and 
disinclined  to  obligate  the  Treasury  to  anything  beyond 
absolutely  necessary  expenses. 

Nevertheless,  the  great  power  and  earnestness  with 

which  Mr.   Calhoun.  addressed  himself  to  the  task  of 

carrying  the  bill  through  its  different  stages 

Passage    of  ,       ... 

the   Bill    by  were  crowned  with  success.     It  finally  passed 
both  Houses,    in  a  slightly  modified  form, 
during  the  last  week  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress  and 
of  President  Madison's  second  term. 


THE   OLD    REPUBLICAN    PARTY  17 

To  the  great  surprise  of  the  friends  of  the  measure,  the 
President  returned  the  bill  to  Congress  on  March  3rd, 
with  his  obiections.  These  were,  summed  up 

•        i  xv          xl,  Veto  of  the 

in  a  single  sentence,  that  there  was  no  war-  EHI  by  the 
rant  in  the  Constitution  for  the  exercise  of  the  I 
power  by  Congress  to  pass  such  a  bill.  The  President 
held  that  Congress  could  appropriate  money  only  to  such 
objects  as  were  placed  by  the  Constitution  under  the' 
jurisdiction  of  the  general  Government.  He,  therefore, 
repudiated  Calhoun's  latitudinarian  view  that  Congress 
was  referred  to  its  own  discretion  merely  in  the  appro 
priation  of  money  for  the  advancement  of  the  general 
welfare.  He  acknowledged  the  desirability  of  attaining 
the  object  contemplated  by  the  bill,  and  indicated  that 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  expressly  conferring 
upon  Congress  the  power  in  question,  was  the  proper 
way  to  deal  with  the  subject.  He  had,  as  we  have  seen, 
recommended  the  consideration  of  the  question  of  in 
ternal  improvements  in  both  of  his  annual  messages  to 
the  Fourteenth  Congress,  and  it  was  chiefly  for  this 
reason  that  the  veto  was  so  unexpected.  It  is  true 
that,  in  both  of  these  messages,  he  had  expressed  some 
doubt  in  regard  to  the  power  of  Congress  over  the 
subject,  but  it  was  supposed  that  this  was  only  his 
cautious  way  of  approaching  a  new  thing,  and  that  he 
would  certainly  defer  to  the  views  of  the  Congressional 
majority. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  Mr.  Madison 
belonged  to  the  first  generation  of  the  Republicans,  and 
that  the  principle  of  the  party,  in  the  period  of  its  ori 
gin,  was  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution  in  regard 
to  the  powers  of  the  general  Government.  He  had  been 
driven  by  the  younger  men  into  the  War,  and  into  the 
national  policies  which  it  occasioned  and  produced,  and 
it  is  at  least  intelligible  that  he  returned  to  his  earlier 
2 


18  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

creed  as  the  country  settled  down  again  into  the  hum 
drum  of  ordinary  life. 

The  national  Republicans  looked  upon  his  act,  how 
ever,  as  an  apostasy,  and  the  House  of  Eepresentatives 
The  failure  repassed  the  bill  by  an  increased  majority 
oveCrrid?est8he  and  with  considerable  feeling.  The  major- 
veto,  jty  was  g^ii^  however,  not  sufficient  to  over 
come  the  veto,  and  thus  the  first  earnest  attempt  to 
commit  the  nation  to  a  general  system  of  internal  im 
provements  failed,  failed  through  the  resurrection  of  a 
spirit  in  the  retiring  President,  which  was  destined  soon 
to  take  possession  of  many  who  denounced  it  then  as 
mean  and  narrow,  and  to  lead  the  whole  country  back 
into  those  cramping  tenets  of  particularism  from  which 
war  and  bloodshed  alone  could  deliver  it. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ACQUISITION  OF  FLORIDA 

The  Influence  of  Physical  Geography  upon  Political  Development — 
Defect  in  the  Southern  Boundary  of  the  United  States  before 
1819 — The  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1763— The  Boundary  between 
Louisiana  and  Florida — Occupation  of  Florida  by  the  United 
States  Forces  during  the  War  of  1812— The  Hold  of  the 
Spaniards  on  Florida  Weakened  by  the  War  of  1812— The 
British  Troops  in  Florida  during  and  after  the  War  of  1812— 
Nicholls  and  his  Buccaneer  State  in  Florida — The  British 
Government's  Repulse  of  Nicholls's  Advances— Destruction  of 
the  Nicholls  Fort  by  the  United  States  Forces. — The  Seminole 
\yar — The  Fight  at  Fowltown— The  Seminole  War  Defensive 
— McGregor  on  Amelia  Island — General  Gaines  sent  to  Amelia 
Island  General  Jackson  placed  in  Command  in  Florida — His 
Orders  —  Jackson's  Letter  to  President  Monroe  —  Jackson's 
Operations  in  Florida — The  First  Treaty  for  the  Cession  of 
Florida  to  the  United  States — Jackson's  Popularity  in  conse 
quence  of  the  Seminole  War — The  Attempt  in  Congress  to 
Censure  Jackson  —  The  same  Attempt  in  the  Cabinet — The 
Failure  of  the  Attempt  to  Censure  Jackson  in  Congress— As 
sumption  of  the  Responsibility  for  Jackson's  Acts  by  the  Ad 
ministration — Jackson  Triumphant— The  Treaty  of  Cession 
Attacked  in  Congress,  but  Ratified  by  the  Senate — Rejection 
of  the  Treaty  by  the  Spanish  Government — Resumption  of 
Negotiations  -The  New  Treaty  Ratified  by  the  Senate  and  by 
the  Spanish  Government — Political  Results  of  the  Seminole 
War. 

IT  was  entirely  natural  that  the  quickening  of  the 
national  spirit  and  the  growth  of  the  national  conscious 
ness  throughout  the  United  States,  in  the  decade  be 
tween  1810  and  1820,  had,  for  one  of  their  results,  the 


20  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

extension  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  at  some 
point  or  other,  to  its  natural  limits. 

The  element  of  physical  geography  ahvays  plays  a 
large  part  in  national  political  development.     The  nat- 

Theinflu-  ur^  territorial  basis  of  a  national  state  is  a 
enceof  physi-  geographical  unity.  That  is,  it  is  a  territory 
upon  poimdi  separated  by  broad  bodies  of  water,  or  high 
mountain  ranges,  or  broad  belts  of  uninhab 
itable  country,  or  climatic  extremes,  from  other  territory, 
and  possessing  a  fair  degree  of  coherence-  within.  If  a 
national  state  develops  itself  on  any  part  of  such  a  ter 
ritory,  it  will  inevitably  tend  to  spread  to  the  natural 
limits  of  the  same.  It  will  not  become  a  completely 
national  state  until  it  shall  have  attained  such  boun 
daries,  for  a  completely  national  state  is  the  sovereign 
organization  of  a  people  having  an  ethnic  unity  upon  a 
territory  which  is  a  geographic  unity. 

In  the  second  decade  of  this  century,  and  down  to  the 
latter  part  of  it,  the  United  States  had  not  acquired  the 

Defect  in  territory  of  the  country  as  far  as  to  the  nat- 
boundaryheaf  ura^  southern  boundary  east  of  Louisiana, 
state?  "blfore  This  Boundary  was,  of  course,  the  Gulf  of 
i8i9.  Mexico  ;  but  Spain  held  in  quasi-possession  a 

broad  strip,  and  then  a  long  peninsula,  of  land  along  and 
within  this  boundary.  In  other  words,  the  territory 
called  Florida,  or  the  Floridas,  was,  politically,  a  colony 
of  Spain,  but  geographically  a  part  of  the  United  States. 
It  was  inhabited  chiefly  by  Indian  tribes.  Spanish  rule 
in  this  territory  was,  therefore,  foreign  rule,  both  from 
the  geographical  point  of  view  and  the  ethnical.  Indian 
rule  was  not  to  be  thought  of  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
There  was  but  one  natural  solution  of  the  question.  It  was 
that  the  United  States  should  annex  this  territory  and 
extend  the  jurisdiction  of  the  general  Government  over  it. 
The  Treaty  of  Paris  of  1763  was  the  first  great  inter- 


THE   ACQUISITION   OF   FLORIDA  21 

national  agreement  which  gave  a  fair  degree  of  definite- 
ness  to  the  claims  of  England,  France,  and  Spain,  upon 
the  North  American  continent.  In  this  The  Treat 
Treaty,  France  surrendered  Canada,  Cape  of  Paris  of 
Breton,  and  all  claims  to  territory  east  of  the 
Mississippi  Kiver,  from  the  source  of  the  river  to  the  point 
of  confluence  of  the  Iberville  with  it,  to  Great  Britain. 
From  this  latter  point,  the  boundary  between  the  two 
powers  was  declared  to  be  the  middle  line  of  the  Iber 
ville,  and  of  the  Lakes  Maurepas  and  Pont  char  train,  to 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  It  is  also  expressly  stated  in  this 
Treaty  that  France  cedes  the  river  and  port  of  Mobile  to 
Great  Britain. 

In  this  same  instrument,  Spain  surrendered  to  Great 
Britain  Florida  and  every  claim  to  territory  east  and 
southeast  of  the  Mississippi. 

The  boundary  between  Louisiana  and  Florida  had,  to 
that  time,  been  the  River  Perdido.  After  the  cessions 
aftove  mentioned  to  Great  Britain,  the  Brit-  The  boun. 
ish  Government  united  the  part  of  Louisiana  iomsian^and 
received  from  France  with  Florida,  and  then  Florida, 
divided  Florida  into  two  districts  by  the  line  of  the 
River  Appalachicola.  That  part  lying  to  the  west  of 
this  river  was  named  West  Florida,  and  the  part  east  of 
it  was  called  East  Florida. 

By  a  secret  Treaty  of  the  year  1762,  which  became 
known  to  the  world  some  eighteen  months  later,  but 
whose  terms  were  not  executed  until  1769,  France  ceded 
Louisiana  to  Spain.  After  this,  therefore,  the  North 
American  continent  was  divided  between  Great  Britain 
and  Spain,  and  the  line  of  division  was,  so  far  as  it  was 
fixed,  the  Mississippi  River  to  the  confluence  of  the 
Iberville  with  it,  then  the  Iberville  and  the  middle  line 
of  the  Lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchartrain  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico. 


22  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  Treaty  of  1762  between  France  and  Spain,  having 
been  concluded  before  the  Treaty  of  1763  between 
France  and  Great  JBritain,  gave  Spain  a  certain  show  of 
title  to  the  territory  between  the  Mississippi  and  the 
Perdido ;  but  the  Treaty  of  1763,  in  which  France  ceded 
this  same  territory  to  Great  Britain,  was,,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  known  first,  and  was  the  Treaty  which  France 
executed  in  respect  to  this  territory.  The  conflict  of 
claims  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  which  was 
thus*  engendered,  continued  to  be  waged  for  twenty 
years,  and  was  settled  in  the  year  1783,  in  so  far  as 
these  two  powers  were  concerned,  by  the  recession  of 
Florida  to  Spain. 

In  this  same  year,  Great  Britain  recognized  the  inde 
pendence  of  the  United  States,  with  a  southern  boun 
dary  extending  from  the  point  where  the  Mississippi 
River  is  intersected  by  the  thirty^first  parallel  of  lati 
tude,  along  this  parallel  to  the  Eiver  Appalachicola, 
thence  down  the  Appalachicola  to  its  confluence  with 
Flint  River,  thence  on  the  line  of  shortest  distance  to 
the  source  of  the  River  St.  Mary,  and  thence  by  the 
course  oi  this  stream  to  the  Atlantic.  Spain  thus  held, 
as  the  result  of  these  several  treaties,  all  of  the  territory 
south  of  this  line,  unless  England  reserved  in  her  reces 
sion  of  Florida  that  portion  of  Louisiana  lying  between 
the  Iberville  and  the  Perdido,  ceded  by  France  to  Great 
Britain  in  the  Treaty  of  1763,  and  united  by  Great 
Britain  with  Florida.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  text 
of  the  Treaty  of  1783  that  Great  Britain  made  any  such 
reservation,  or  in  the  subsequent  actions  of  the  British 
Government. 

By  the  Treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso,  of  October  1st,  1800, 
also  a  secret  treaty,  Spain  receded  Louisiana  to  France. 
The  description  of  the  territory  thus  receded  was  very 
vague.  It  reads  in  the  official  translation  of  the  treaty: 


THE   ACQUISITION    OF   FLORIDA  23 

k<rHis  Catholic  Majesty  promises  and  engages,  on  his 
part,  to  cede  to  the  French  Republic,  six  months  after 
the  full  and  entire  execution  of  the  conditions  and  stip 
ulations  herein  relative  to  his  Royal  Highness  the  Duke 
of  Parma,  the  Colony  or  Province  of  Louisiana,  with  the 
same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  and 
that  it  had  when  France  possessed  it ;  and  such  as  it 
should  be  after  the  treaties  subsequently  entered  into 
between  Spain  and  other  states." 

There  was  here  certainly  opportunity  for  a  dispute 
between  Spain  and  France  as  to  the  correct  boundary 
between  Louisiana  and  Florida.  France  could  claim 
with  some  reason  the  Perdido  as  the  eastern  boundary  of 
Louisiana,  and  Spain  could  meet  this  with  a  counter 
claim  that,  after  the  cession  in  1763  of  all  Louisiana  east 
of  the  Iberville  and  the  Lakes  to  Great  Britain,  and  its 
union  by  Great  Britain  with  Florida,  the  line  of  the 
Iberville  and  the  Lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchartrain 
was  the  eastern  boundary  of  Louisiana. 

Before,  however,  any  actual  contest  arose  over  the 
question,  France  sold  Louisiana  to  the  United  States, 
with  the  same  vague  description  of  boundary  contained 
in  the  cession  of  the  territory  from  Spain  to  France  by 
the  Treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso.  The  question  of  boundary 
became  now  one  which  must  be  settled  between  Spain 
and  the  United  States. 

The  United  States  claimed  at  once  that  Louisiana 
reached  to  the  Perdido.  Spain  disputed  the  claim, 
and  held  that  Florida  extended  to  the  Iberville  and  the 
Lakes.  Spain  could  make  out  the  better  abstract  of 
title.  Spain  certainly  did  not  intend  to  recede  to  France 
in  1800  anything  more  as  Louisiana  than  France  had 
ceded  to  her  in  1762.  But  the  United  States  had  a  show 
of  legal  title.  It  could  be  held  that  the  ancient  boun 
dary  of  Louisiana  was  the  one  intended  both  in  the  Treaty 


24  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

of  St.  Ildefonso  and  in  that  of  1803,  in  which  France 
passed  the  possession  of  Louisiana  to  the  United  States. 
The  reasons  of  physical  geography  and  of  national  de 
velopment  certainly  favored  the  annexation  of  the  whole 
of  Florida  to  the  United  States  ;  and  with  such  forces 
to  back  the  apparent  legal  claim  to  a  large  part  of  it,  the 
result  of  the  dispute  could  not  well  have  been  otherwise 
than  it  was. 

The  United  States  enforced  its  claim  by  military  oc 
cupation  of  the  disputed  district  before  the  close  of  the 
War  of  1812. 

During  the  course  of  the  war,  the  British  forces  had 
occupied  Pensacola.  The  Spanish  governor  either  could 

occupation  not,  or  would  not,  prevent  them  from  doing 
theWfte?  so-  Florida  became  thus,  in  spite  of  its 
fufi  nfgrthe  nominal  neutral  status,  a  base  of  operations 
war  of  1812.  for  the  enemy  of  the  United  States.  No 
more  convincing  evidence  of  the  necessity  for  its  annex 
ation  to  the  United  States  could  have  been  offered.  It 
was  thus  seen  that  not  only  the  geography  and  the 
national  growth  of  the  Union  demanded  it,  but  that 
the  safety  of  the  Union,  in  case  of  war  with  any  power, 
required  it.  The  sea  is  the  natural,  boundary  of  the 
United  States  on  the  south,  and  it  was  the  "manifest 
destiny  "  of  the  Union  to  reach  it. 

The  occupation  of  Florida  would  have  been  a  sound 
and  justifiable  policy  for  the  United  States,  had  the 
Government  commanded  a  sufficient  military  force  for 
the  purpose,  when  the  British  troops  took  possession  of 
Pensacola.  General  Jackson  did  expel  the  British  from 
Pensacola,  but  restored  the  place  to  the  Spanish  author 
ities,  in  order  to  avoid  a  conflict  with  Spain  while  en 
gaged  in  war  with  Great  Britain.  We  know  now  that 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had,  by  secret  acts 
passed  before  the  beginning  of  the  War,  authorized  the 


THE   ACQUISITION    OF   FLORIDA  25 

President  to  occupy  Florida  east  of  the  Perdido  tem 
porarily.  The  President  did  not  deem  it  wise,  under 
the  circumstances  which  prevailed,  to  make  use  of  this 
power  ;  but  the  readiness  of  the  Congress  to  intrust  the 
President  with  the  authority  to  take  possession  of  the 
territory  of  a  friendly  power  certainly  shows  that  a  strong 
feeling  existed  among  the  representatives  of  the  people 
that  Florida  must  be  acquired  by  the  United  States  upon 
the  first  fair  opportunity. 

The  occasion  was  destined  soon  to  appear.  The  power 
of  Spain  upon  the  American  continents  was  everywhere 
in  rapid  decline.  At  the  close  of  the  War  of  The  ho]d  of 
1812,  the  Spanish  occupation  in  Florida  was  JJ?  f  fj?  t^ft 
confined  substantially  to  three  points  —  Pen-  ^aeke^r  of 
sacola,  St.  Mark's,  and  St.  Augustine.  The  1812- 
remainder  of  the  province,  by  far  the  greater  part  of  it, 
was  a  free  zone,  in  which  desperate  adventurers  of  every 
race  and  land  might  congregate,  from  which  they  might 
make  their  raids  for  murder  and  pillage  into  the  United 
States,  and  into  which  they  might  escape  again  with 
their  prisoners  and  plunder. 

We  have  noticed  the  occupation  of  Pensacola  by  the 
British  troops  during  the  War  of  1812,  and  their  ex 
pulsion  by  General  Jackson  from  this  posi- 

7.         .      ^T  „    ..__,  A  .,  .       ,  ,  The  British 

tion  in  JNovember  01  1814.     Alter  this,  they  troop 


concentrated  upon  the  Appalachicola  and  LfterUthegwar 
established  a  fort  some  fifteen  miles  above  Ofl812> 
the  mouth  of  this  stream  for  their  head-quarters  and 
base  of  operations.  The  British  commander,  one  Col 
onel  Nicholls,  pursued  from  this  point  the  policy  which 
he  had  already  inaugurated  at  Pensacola.  This  policy 
was  the  collection  and  organization  of  fugitive  negroes, 
Indians,,  and  adventurers  of  every  character,  and  their 
employment  in  raids  into  the  territory,  and  attacks 
upon  the  inhabitants,  of  the  United  States. 


26  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

It  appears  that  Colonel  Nicholls  did  not  regard  the 
Treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
concluding  the  War  as  putting  an  end  necessarily  to 
his  hostile  movements.  He  remained  in  command  at 
his  fort  on  the  Appalachicola  for  several  months  after 
the  ratification  of  the  Treaty,  and  then  went  to  Lon 
don,  taking  with  him  the  Indian  priest  Francis,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  a  treaty  of  alliance  between 
the  British  Government  and  his  band  of  outlaws  in 
Florida. 

Before  leaving  the  Appalachicola,  he  had  incited  the 
Indians  and  their  negro  auxiliaries  to  continue  hos- 
tilities  against  the  United  States,  by  repre- 
?tSte  senting  to  them  that  the  ninth  article  of  the 
in  Florida.  Treaty  of  Ghent  contained  a  pledge  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  reinstate  the  Indians  in 
all  lands  held  by  them  in  the  year  1811.  He  repre 
sented  to  them  that  this  provision  restored  to  the 
Creeks  the  lands  in  southern  Georgia  surrendered  by 
them  to  the  United  States  in  the  Treaty  between  the 
Creeks  and  the  United  States  made  at  Fort  Jackson 
in  August  of  1814,  although  it  was  well  understood  by 
both  of  the  high  contracting  parties  to  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent  that  only  those  lands  were  intended  under 
this  provision  whose  seizure  by  the  United  States  had 
not  been  confirmed  by  an  agreement  with  the  In 
dians  ;  and  the  pledge  as  to  these  only  was  condi 
tioned  upon  the  immediate  cessation  of  hostilities  on 
the  part  of  the  Indians  when  the  Treaty  of  Ghent 
should  be  announced  to  them.  This  announcement 
had  been  made,  and  the  actual  continuation  of  hostili 
ties,  therefore,  after  the  announcement,  made  this  whole 
article  nugatory. 

Nicholls  left  the  fort,  with  all  its  munitions,  in  the 
hands  of  the  negroes  and  Indians.  The  garrison  con- 


THE   ACQUISITION   OF    FLORIDA  27 

sisted  of  some  three  hundred  negroes  and  about  twenty 
Indians. 

The  British  Government  would  not  listen  to  Nicholas 
proposition  for  an  alliance  between  Great  ^^  British 
Britain  and  the  buccaneering  state  which  he  Government's 

,    ,  ,.  -,  .,  repulse  of 

was  endeavoring  to  establish  upon  territory  Nicholas  ad- 
belonging  politically  to  Spain. 

The  United  States  Government  waited  a  year  and  a 
half  for  the  disbanding  of  this  hostile  force,  or  for  its 
dispersion  by  the  Spanish  authorities,  and  Deetruction 
then,  when  forbearance  had  ceased  to  be  a  oftheNichoiis 
virtue,  did  the  work  itself.  The  fort  was  uSteAates 
destroyed  by  the  explosion  of  its  magazine,  i 
which  was  pierced  by  a  red-hot  shot  from  the  batteries 
of  the  assailants,  and  almost  the  whole  garrison  perished. 
It  was  claimed  that  the  attack  was  made  by  the  United 
States  forces  with  the  consent  of  the  Spanish  authorities, 
whatever  the  significance  of  that  may  have  been. 

ProfessorjEOQ  Holatr  in  his  great  work,  has  designated 
the  expedition  against  the  Nicholls  Fort  as  a  hunt  by  the 
United  States  army  for  fugitive  slaves.  He  does  not  seem 
to  have  recognized  the  danger  to  the  peace  and  civiliza 
tion  of  the  United  States  of  the  growth  of  a  community 
of  pirates  and  buccaneers  upon  its  borders.  It  does  not 
appear  to  have  occurred  to  him  that  the  most  humane  at-' 
titude  toward  the  slaves  of  Georgia  may  have  been  to  pre 
vent  them  from  being  drawn  into  any  such  connection. 
He  does  not  seem  to  have  comprehended  that  any  public 
interest  was  subserved  by  disposing  of  the  negroes  cap 
tured  in  this  expedition  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  any 
future  attempts  on  their  part  at  co-operation  with  the 
Indians  in  their  barbarous  warfare  upon  the  frontiers  of 
the  United  States.  In  a  sentence,  he  seems  to  have  re 
garded  the  entire  incident  as  a  prostitution  of  the  military 
power  of  the  United  States  to  the  private  greed  of  slave- 


28  THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

hunters,  and  to  have  discovered  in  it  a  most  convincing 
proof  of  the  canting  hypocrisy  of  the  free  Eepublic. 
In  view  of  all  the  facts  of  the  case,  this  certainly  appears 
to  be  a  very  crude  appreciation  of  the  subject. 

This  same  historian  calls  the  attack  upon  the  Nicholls 

fort  the  beginning  of  the  Seminole  War.     It  appears, 

The    semi-  however,  more  like  the  termination  of  the 

nole  War.  War    of    jg^  go  for  ag  the  negrQ   outlawg    of 

Florida  were  participant  in  that  War,  than  like  the  be 
ginning  of  a  new  war.  Generals'  Gaines  and  Jackson 
and  the  War  Department  of  the  Government  seem  to 
have  so  comprehended  the  event. 

After  the  destruction  of  the  Nicholls  Fort,  of  the 
Negro  Fort,  as  it  was  then  called,  there  was  comparative 
peace,  for  a  few  months,  on  the  frontier.  With  the  begin 
ning  of  the  year  1817,  however,  hostilities  were  renewed. 
It  is  not  known  which  party  gave  the  first  offence.  Ex- 
Governor  Mitchell  of  Georgia,  then  holding  the  office 
of  Indian  agent  for  these  parts,  thought  both  parties 
equally  at  fault.  The  point  is  a  matter  of  little  mo 
ment.  The  conflict  between  civilization  and  barbarism 
is  irrepressible,  and  arises  as  often  from  the  encroach 
ments  of  civilization  as  from  the  onslaughts  of  barbar 
ism. 

In  November  of  1817,  General  Gaines  endeavored  to 
secure  an  interview  with  the  chief  of  the  hostile  Indians, 
The  fight  at  but  the  chief  refused  to  visit  the  General, 
itown.  whereupon  the  General  sent  a  detachment  of 
soldiers  to  the  chiefs  village,  called  Fowltown,  to  repeat 
his  invitation,  and  to  conduct  the  chief  and  his  war 
riors  to  a  parley-ground.  The  soldiers  were  fired  upon 
by  the  Indians  as  they  approached  the  village.  They 
naturally  returned  the  fire,  and  then  seized  and  de 
stroyed  the  village.  A  few  Indians  were  killed  in  the 
conflict. 


THE   ACQUISITION    OF    FLORIDA  29 

The  Indian  agent,  Mitchell,  called  this  event  the  be 
ginning  of  the  Seminole  War.  It  was  certainly  some 
thing  more  like  it  than  was  the  capture  of  the  Negro 
Fort.  Still  it  will  be  more  correct  to  consider  it  as 
being  only  the  continuation  of  the  War  of  1812,  in  so  far 
as  the  participation  in  that  War  of  Great  Britain's  Indian 
allies  on  the  southern  border  of  the  United  States  was 
concerned.  They  had  never  really  resumed  the  status 
of  peace  after  acting  during  that  War,  at  the  instigation 
of  the  British  officers  in  Florida,  against  the  United 
States. 

Following  the  fight  at  Fowltown  hostilities  became 
much  more  active.  Fowltown  was  situated  north  of  the 
Florida  line,  upon  territory  ceded  by  the  The  gem 
Creeks  to  the  United  States  in  the  Treaty  of  j^v^ar  de- 
Fort  Jackson.  If,  therefore,  the  incident  of 
November  20th  was  the  beginning  of  the  Seminole 
War,  it  stamps  that  War  as  defensive  in  its  char 
acter.  The  troops  of  the  United  States  were  attacked 
upon  the  territory  of  the  United  States.  If  the  fur 
ther  prosecution  of  the  War  should,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  President,  or  of  the  officer  whom  he  might  vest 
with  discretionary  power  in  the  execution  of  his  will, 
require  the  crossing  of  the  Florida  line  and  the  pursuit 
of  the  enemy  upon  Florida  territory,  the  character  of 
the  War  could  not  be  changed  thereby.  This  could  not 
be  regarded  as  making  war  on  Spain.  Spain  could  meet 
and  satisfy  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  do  this 
only  by  dispersing  the  Indians  herself,  and  preventing 
Florida  from  becoming  a  base  of  hostile  operations 
against  the  United  States.  Spain  could  claim  the  rights 
of  neutrality  for  Florida  only  when  she  discharged  these 
duties  of  neutrality.  The  general  principles  of  inter 
national  custom  required  that  of  her.  When,  now,  we 
add  to  this  the  consideration  that  Spain  had  pledged 


30  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

herself  in  a  specific  agreement  with  the  United  States 
to  do  these  very  things,  and  that  Florida,  nevertheless, 
was  actually  a  free  zone,  over  which  no  civilized  state 
had  any  efficient  control,  then  it  certainly  appears  that 
the  right  of  the  United  States  to  pursue  its  enemy  into 
Florida  was  clearly  in  keeping  with  the  recognized  law 
of  nations.  The  President,  therefore,  ordered  the  pur 
suit  of  the  enemy  into  Florida,  under  the  qualification 
that  if  they  took  refuge  in  a  Spanish  fortification  the 
fortress  should  not  be  attacked,  but  the  situation  should 
be  reported  to  the  War  Department  and  further  orders 
awaited.  This  order  was  issued  on  December  16th,  1817, 
to  General  Gaines,  who  was  then  in  command  of  the 
forces  on  the  Florida  frontier. 

Meanwhile  an  adventurer  by  the  name  of  McGregor 
had,  with  a  band  of  freebooters,  taken  possession  of 
Amelia  Island,  which  lies  off  the  coast  of  Fior- 
on  Amelia  ida,  just  below  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Mary's 
River,  and  had,  in  the  name  of  the  Govern 
ments  of  Buenos  Ayres  and  Venezuela,  proclaimed  the 
independence  of  Florida  against  Spain.  They  made 
the  island  an  entrepot  for  the  smuggling  of  slaves  into 
the  United  States,  a  storehouse  for  the  results  of  their 
robberies,  and  head-quarters  generally  for  piratical  ex 
peditions. 

By  a  secret  act  of  the  year  1811,  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  had  declared  its  unwillingness  to  have 

General  Florida,  or  any  part  of  it,  pass  from  the 
AnJeiiaTiriu  nan(^s  of  Spain  into  those  of  any  other  pow- 
and-  er,  and  had  authorized  the  President  to  pre 

vent  it.  Acting  upon  this  authority,  the  President  in 
structed  General  Gaines  to  go  to  Amelia  Island  and  take 
possession  of  it. 

About  ten  days  later,  December  26th,  1817,  the  Presi 
dent  assigned  General  Jackson  to  the  command  of  the 


THE   ACQUISITION   OF   FLORIDA  31 

troops  acting  against  the  Indians.  The  day  before  the 
issue  of  the  order  to  General  Jackson,  the  War  Depart 
ment  had  received  the  news  of  the  Indian  at- 

T  .  ,   «      i.»"    i  'i  -i  GeneralJack 

tack  upon  Lieutenant  ocott  s  boat  while  as-  son  placed  in 
cending  the  Appalachicola  with  supplies  for  ModSa?  H£ 


the  United  States  troops  at  Fort  Scott.  The  order8' 
cold-blooded  massacre  of  almost  the  entire  crew  of  the 
boat  apparently  moved  the  War  Department  to  more 
energetic  measures.  The  order  to  General  Jackson,  be 
sides  investing  him  with  the  command,,  empowered  him 
to  call  on  the  Governors  of  the  adjacent  Commonwealths 
for  such  military  forces  as  he  might  deem  necessary, 
with  those  already  in  the  field,  to  overcome  the  Indians, 
and  informed  him  that  General  Gaines  had  been  in 
structed  "to  penetrate  from  Amelia  Island,  through 
Florida,  to  the  Seminole  towns,  if  his  force  would  jus 
tify  his  engaging  in  offensive  operations/'  "  With  this 
view,"  the  order  to  Jackson  continues,  "  you  may  be 
prepared  to  concentrate  your  forces,  and  to  adopt  the 
necessary  measures  to  terminate  a  conflict  which  it  has 
ever  been  the  desire  of  the  President  to  avoid,  but  which 
is  now  made  necessary  by  their  settled  hostilities." 

When  Jackson  received  these  orders  he  was  in  Ten 
nessee.  He  wrote  immediately  to  the  President  :  "  Let 
it  be  signified  to  me  through  any  channel 
(say  Mr.  J.  Rhea)  that  the  possession  of  the  letter  to  Presi- 
Floridas  would  be  desirable  to  the  United  d 
States  and  in  sixty  days  it  will  be  accomplished." 
General  Jackson  naturally  supposed  that  this  letter 
was  duly  received  and  read  by  President  Monroe,  and 
that  a  subsequent  order,  giving  him  discretionary  powers 
in  the  prosecution  of  the  campaign,  contained  the  answer 
to  it.  As  we  shall  see,  however,  the  President  claimed 
later  that  he  did  not  read  Jackson's  letter  until  a  year 
after  it  was  written  and  sent  to  him.  It  was  certainly 


32  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

the  President's  fault  if  he  did  not.  General  Jackson 
certainly  could  not  be  held  accountable  for  the  Pres 
ident's  strange  negligence  in  examining  official  corre 
spondence,  and  he  had  good  reason  to  think,  from  the 
tone  of  the  order  issued  to  him  after  his  letter  had  had 
due  time  to  be  received  and  read,  that  the  Administra 
tion  desired  him  to  occupy  Florida. 

Upon  taking  command  Jackson  called  his  Tennessee 
veterans  to  him,  and  reached  with  them  the  Florida 
frontier  in  March  of  1818. 

When  he  advanced  into   Florida  he  found  that  the 

Spanish  officials  in  Florida  were  in  collusion  with  the 

Indians,  and  that  the  instigators  of  the  hos- 

Jackson's     ,.-,.,.  -^       , .   ,  ., 

operations  in  tihties   were   an   Englishman,    named  Am- 
brister,  and  a  Scotchman,  named  Arbuthnot, 
together    with    two  Indian  chiefs    named  Hillis  Hajo 
and  Himallemico. 

An  order  from  the  War  Department,  of  January 
16th,  1818,  instructed  the  commander  of  the  United 
States  forces  in  Florida  that  the  honor  of  the  nation  re 
quired  a  speedy  termination  of  the  War  with  the  Semi- 
noles,  "with  exemplary  punishment  for  hostilities  so 
unprovoked."  Jackson  naturally  considered  himself 
empowered  to  do  speedy  and  thorough  work.  He  felt 
it  necessary  to  seize  St.  Mark's  and  Pensacola,  in  order 
to  destroy  the  base  of  operations  and  the  places  of  re 
fuge  of  the  enemy,  and  he  caused  the  four  ringleaders 
of  the  enemy  to  be  executed.  By  the  end  of  May 
(1818)  the  campaign  was  ended,  and  Florida  was  in  the 
military  possession  of  the  United  States.  The  Presi 
dent  assumed  the  responsibility  for  Jackson's  deeds,  but 
offered  to  restore  St.  Mark's  and  Pensacola,  and  there 
with  the  nominal  possession  of  Florida,  to  Spain,  so 
soon  as  Spain  would  garrison  these  points  with  forces 
able  to  maintain  peace  with  the  United  States  and  dis- 


THE    ACQUISITION    OF    FLORIDA  33 

posed  to  do  so.  Spain  accepted  the  offer,  fulfilled  in  a 
way  the  conditions,  and  the  places  were  restored  to  her 
jurisdiction. 

It  was  now  manifest  to  Spain,  however,  that  she 
could  not  control  Florida,  and  that  her  possession  of 
the  province  was,  and  could  be,  only  norni-  ^^^  flrgt 
nal.  She  now,  therefore,  agreed  to  cede  it  Treaty  for  the 
to  the  United  States.  The  treaty  bears  F?orida°to  the 
date  of  February  22nd,  1819.  Its  important  ] 
provisions  are  contained  in  the  second  and  third  articles. 
.  By  these  articles  Spain  ceded  the  Floridas,  with  the  ad 
jacent  islands  dependent  thereon,  to  the  United  States  ; 
/and  agreed  with  the  United  States  that  the  boundary  be 
tween  the  two  powers  in  North  America  should  be  the 
west  bank  of  the  Sabine  Eiver  from  its  mouth  to  the 
thirty-second  parallel  of  north  latitude,  thence  the  line 
of  longitude  to  the  Red  River,  thence  up  the  course  of 
the  Red  River  to  the  one-hundredth  parallel  of  longitude 
from  London,  or  the  twenty-third  from  Washington, 
thence  the  line  of  longitude  to  the  Arkansas.  River, 
thence  the  south  bank  of  the  Arkansas  to  its  source, 
thence  the  line  of  longitude  to  the  forty-second  par 
allel  of  north  latitude,  and  thence  this  line  of  latitude 
to  the  South  Sea.  ) 

This  settlement  of  boundary  included  that  of  all 
other  claims,  of  whatever  character,  of  the  Government, 
citizens,  or  subjects  of  either  power  against  the  Govern 
ment,  citizens,  or  subjects  of  the  other.  All  such  were 
mutually  renounced. 

The  results  of  the  Seminole  War  raised  General  Jack 
son  to  a  still  higher  plane  of  popularity  than  he  pos 
sessed  as  the  hero  of  the  War  of  1812.  It  was  evident 
that  here  was  a  character  who  would  have  to  be  reckoned 
with  in  future  presidential  contests.  It  is  possible  that 
Jackson's  chief  mentor,  William  B.  Lewis,  had  con- 
2 


34  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ceived,  at  this  date,  the  idea  of  Jackson's  candidacy  for 

the  highest  place  in  the  gift  of  the  nation.     And  it  is 

highly  probable  that  the  fears  of  all  the  ex- 

Jackson's     .  ^  •  *        n  -j 

popularity  m  istmg  aspirants  for  the  presidency  were  ex- 

o^h^seim-  cited   by  the  appearance   of   this   new  and 

popular  rival  for  public  favor.     It  is  difficult 

/to  explain  upon  any  other  theory  the  attempt  made  in 
Congress,  during  the  session  of  1818-19,  to  suppress 
Jackson  by  a  vote  of  censure. 

This  procedure  certainly  had  no  connection  whatso 
ever  with  the  question  of  slavery  extension  through  the 
The  attempt  acquisition  of  Florida.  When  we  find  Tall- 
ceSSfSk-  niadge,  of  New  York,  the  self-same  per- 
B0n-  son  who  introduced,  at  the  same  session,  the 

proposition  for  restricting  slavery  in  Missouri,  defending 
Jackson's  course  in  every  particular,  while  Cobb,  of  Geor 
gia,  attacked  it,  and  when  we  consider  that  John  Quin- 
cy  Adams,  the  life-long  opponent  of  slavery,  sustained 
Jackson  in  the  cabinet,  while  Calhoun  moved  to  bring 
him  to  account  for  disobedience  to  orders,  we  are  bound 
to  conclude  that  we  have  here  nothing  whatsoever  to  do 
with  the  question  of  slavery. 

Crawford,  of  Georgia,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
was  the  prime  aspirant  for  presidential  honors,  after 
Monroe  should  have  completed  his  two 
attempt  in&Se  terms,  and  Cobb  was  Crawford's  right-hand 
man.  Clay  was  also  working  up  his  plans. 
These  two  men  felt  it  necessary  to  discredit  Jackson  in 
every  possible  way.  Clay  made  a  great  bugbear  out 
of  Jackson's  military  heroship,  and  so  threatening 
did  he  make  it  appear  to  the  principle  of  civil  govern 
ment  and  republican  institutions  that  he  really  seemed 
frightened  at  it  himself.  Crawford  set  up  the  same 
strain,  through  Cobb,  in  a  feebler  key.  Calhoun  seems 
to  have  been  animated  rather  by  wrath  at  what  he  con- 


THE   ACQUISITION   OF   FLORIDA  35 

ceived  to  be  the  violation  of  his  orders,  or,  at  least,  the 
exceeding  of  his  orders,  than  by  jealousy  of  a  presidential 
rival.  His  presidential  fever  had  not,  at  that  moment, 
reached  a  high  degree.  But  what  shall  we  say  of 
Adams,  who  undoubtedly  then  considered  himself  a  can 
didate  for  the  successorship  to  Monroe,  and  who  stood 
against  the  whole  Cabinet  in  Jackson's  defence,  and  car 
ried  the  day  against  both  Crawford  and  Calhoun  com 
bined.  Of  course  it  may  be  said  that  Adams  thought 
his  own  turn  would  come  before  that  of  Jackson,  and 
that  he  would  gain  Jackson's  support  by  his  attitude. 
But  against  such  a  supposition  must  stand  the  fact  that 
the  Cabinet  pledged  itself  to  secrecy  in  regard  to  all 
that  was  proposed  on  the  subject,  and  that  for  ten  years 
Jackson  supposed  that  Calhoun  was  the  friend  in  the 
Cabinet  who  had  successfully  defended  him  against  the 
other  members  under  the  lead  of  Crawford.  The  atti 
tude  of  Adams  in  the  question  was  noble  and  disinter 
ested,  as  well  as  patriotic,  and  had  Jackson  known  of  it 
in  1824,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  he  would  never 
have  charged  an  unfair  bargain  with  Clay  upon  Adams 
for  his  own  defeat. 

Clay  and  Cobb  represented  that  every  movement  made 
by  Jackson,  from  the  moment  of  his  appointment  to  the 
command  of  the  expedition  to  the  end  of 
hostilities,  was  illegal  and  in  defiance  of  the  of  the  attempt 
orders  of  the  War  Department.  They  said  jacfifoi^Yn 
he  had  no  right  to  call  upon  his  old  soldiers  Congre88- 
instead  of  asking  the  Governor  of  Tennessee  for  the 
militia.  They  claimed  that  he  waged  an  offensive  war 
upon  his  own  responsibility  against  Spain,  when  the 
War  Department  had  expressly  forbidden  him  to  attack 
the  Spanish  forts,  and  they  accused  him  of  murdering 
two  prisoners  of  war.  The  House  of  Representatives 
showed  what  it  thought  of  these  accusations  by  voting 


36  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

down  the  resolutions  which  contained  the  censure  by  a 
majority  of  nearly  two  to  one,  while  the  resolutions  of 
like  effect  introduced  into  the  Senate  were  laid  on  the 
table  and  never  taken  up  for  consideration. 

The  Administration  had,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Adams,  already  assumed  the  re- 
Assumption  sponsibility  for  Jackson's  acts,  had  upheld 
sfbmtyresf  onr  their  legality,  and  was  even  then  bringing  its 
bySe0AdmS-  negotiations  with  Spain,  in  regard  to  the  ces- 
istration.  sion  of  Florida,  to  a  successful  close  ;  while 
the  British  Government  had  refrained  from  any  inter 
ference  on  account  of  the  treatment  of  Ambrister  and 
Arbuthnot. 

The  attempt  to  suppress  Jackson  broke  down  thus 
upon  all  sides,  and  he  emerged  from  the  assaults  of  his 
Jackson  tri  r^va^s  w^^  a  greater  popularity  than  he  had 
umphant.  ever  before  enjoyed,  and  with  improved  pros 
pects  as  a  presidential  candidate.  With  the  worship 
accorded  to  a  hero  he  now  enjoyed  the  sympathy  ex 
tended  to  a  martyr. 

The  Treaty  itself,  ceding  the  Floridas,  did  not  escape 
attack.  Adams  regarded  it  as  a  great  diplomatic  tri- 
The  Treaty  umph  for  the  United  States,  but  Clay  ex- 
-  pressed  great  disappointment  with  it,  because 
t  sacrificed,  as  he  viewed  it,  the  claims  of  the 
senate.  United  States  to  the  territory  between  the 

Sabine  and  the  Eio  del  Norte.  And  Crawford,  who  was 
seizing  every  opportunity  to  discredit  the  Administra 
tion,  by  encouraging  it  to  false  measures  from  his  place 
in  the  Cabinet,  and  then  professing  publicly  his  disap 
probation  of  them,  also  saw  in  the  point  emphasized  by 
Clay  a  prime  occasion  for  making  political  capital. 

The  Senate  showed  what  its  members  thought  of  such 
manoeuvres  by  a  speedy  and  unanimous  vote  in  ratifica 
tion  of  the  Treaty. 


THE   ACQUISITION    OF    FLORIDA  37 

The  Spanish  Government,,  on  the  other  hand,  rejected 
the  Treaty.  Mr.  Adams  felt,  at  the  moment,  that  this 
was  a  blow  to  his  reputation  as  a  diplomatist,  Rejection  of 
and  perhaps  to  his  chances  for  the  presi-  fhe  Danish 
dency.  But  it  did  not  prove  to  be  such.  Government. 
Had  the  Treaty  been  then  ratified  three  large  land 
grants  made  by  the  Spanish  King  to  certain  Spanish 
nobles,  at  a  date  earlier  than  Mr.  Adams  had  supposed, 
would  not  have  been  extinguished  by  it.  The  rejection 
of  the  Treaty  by  the  Spanish  Government,  which  at  the 
same  time  sent  another  Ambassador,  General  Vives,  to 
take  the  place  of  Don  Onis,  and  to  renew  negotiations 
on  the  subject,  gave  Mr.  Adams  the  opportunity  to  in 
sist  upon  the  cession  of  Florida  with  the  extinguishment 
of  the  above-mentioned  grants. 

When  the  new  Ambassador  arrived,  the  country  was 
in  the  midst  of  the  excitement  over  the  question  of 
slavery  extension  in  the  Louisiana  territory, 
the  history  of  which  will  be  related  in  a  sue-  0  f 
ceeding  chapter.  The  effect  of  this  agitation  t 
was  to  arouse  some  doubt  in  the  minds  of  those  opposed 
to  the  extension  of  slavery  in  regard  to  the  expe 
diency  of  any  addition  to  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  southward.  Mr.  Adams  himself  felt  the  influ 
ence  of  this  doubt,  and  was  prompted,  in  part  at  least, 
by  it  to  assume  an  attitude  of  indifference  toward  the 
new  propositions  of  the  Spanish  Ambassador.  He  gave 
the  Ambassador  to  understand  that  Spain  could  make 
such  a  treaty  with  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the 
subject  as  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  latter,  or  take 
the  consequences  of  leaving  things  as  they  were.  The 
unshakable  determination  of  Mr.  Adams  won  the  day, 
and  the  old  Treaty,  with  a  new  provision  extinguish 
ing  the  above-mentioned  land  grants,  was  finally  rati 
fied  by  both  Governments,  two  years  after  the  date  of 


38  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

the  original  agreement  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Don 
Onis. 

The  vote  of  ratification  by  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  was    again  practically  unanimous.      Only   four 

The  new  votes  were  recorded  against  it ;  and  of  these 
byTheSte  f°ur  °ne  was  cast  by  a  brother-in-law  of  Mr. 
Spanish7  GOV-  claJ'  one  ^J  a  subservient  friend  of  the  same 
ernment.  gentleman,  and  one  by  a  bitter  personal  enemy 
of  General  Jackson.  The  province  was  soon  transferred 
to  the  United  States  and  Jackson  became  its  first  ter 
ritorial  governor.  With  this  the  United  States  attained 
its  natural  boundary  on  the  south,  eastward  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  and  a  source  of  chronic 
irritation  was  removed. 

It  was^  to  be  expected  that  this  territory  would  be 
erected  into  a  Commonwealth  in  which  the  institution  of 

Political  re  slaveiT  would  be  legalized  ;  but  this  did  not 
suits  of  the  deter  the  statesmen  of  the  North  from  secur- 

SeminoleWar.  ,n  -.  .  .     ,. 

ing  the  great  advantages  just  indicated.  Rad 
ical  abolitionism  had  not  yet  blinded  them  to  the  general 
and  paramount  interests  of  the  Union.  In  fact,  the  re 
sults  of  the  Seminole  War  and  of  the  diplomacy  of  the 
Administration  in  connection  with  it  had  the  immediate 
effect  of  diminishing  the  ultra-Southern  influence  in  the 
Government.  They  brought  Adams  and  Jackson  to  the 
front,  and  set  Crawford  and  Calhoun  back  in  the  course 
of  their  careers.  They  had,  indeed,  much  to  do,  as  we 
shall  see  later,  with  the  development  of  the  era  of  per 
sonal  politics,  which  prevailed  from  1824  to  1832,  and 
which  terminated  finally  in  the  separation  of  the  all- 
comprehending  Republican  party  into  the  Whig  party 
and  the  Democratic  party. 


CHAPTER  III. 

SLAVERY   IN  THE   UNITED  STATES  BEFORE   1820 

First  Appearance  of  Slavery  in  the  British  North  American  Col 
onies — Early  Theory  of  the  Benefits  of  Slavery — The  Earliest 
Legal  Recognition  of  Slavery  in  the  Colonies — Northern  Col 
onies  not  well  Adapted  to  Negro  Labor — The  Southern  Col 
onies  well  Adapted  to  Negro  Labor — Negro  Slavery  a  Tempo 
rary  Necessity  in  -the  South— Was  Negro  Slavery  an  Error  and 
an  Evil  from  the  first  ? — Slavery  Legislation  in  the  Southern 
Colonies — Partus  Sequitur  Ventrem — Definitions  of  the  Slave 
Class — The  Test  of  the  Slave  Status  as  Fixed  by  the  Virginia 
Statute— The  Legal  Position  of  the  Slave— Tendency  Toward 
Serfage  in  the  Code  of  1705 — Public  Relations  of  the  Slave 
System — The  General  Object  of  the  Laws  in  respect  to  Slaves — 
Slavery  and  the  Revolutionary  Ideas  of  the  Rights  of  Man — 
First  Prohibition  upon  Slave  Importation — Abolition  of  Slav 
ery  in  the  Northern  Commonwealths  after  the  Beginning  of 
the  Revolution — Slavery  and  the  Constitution  of  1787 — Reac 
tion  against  the  Humanitarian  Principles  of  the  Revolution — 
Abolition  of  the  Foreign  Slave-trade  by  Congress — Cotton 
Culture  and  the  Cotton-gin — The  Effect  of  the  Return  to  the 
Arts  of  Peace  upon  the  Ideas  Concerning  Slavery  —  Slavery 
During  the  War  of  1812,  and  the  Years  just  before  and  just  after 
this  War— Slavery  in  the  Louisiana  Territory— Slavery  in  the 
Territory  West  of  North  Carolina  and  Georgia — Slavery  in 
Louisiana  a  Different  Question  from  Slavery  in  the  North 
Carolina  and  Georgia  Cessions — Interest  in  Slavery  in  Mary 
land  and  Virginia  Increased  by  the  Acquisition  of  Louisiana — 
The  Domestic  Slave  trade — The  Relation  of  Slavery  to  the 
Diplomacy  of  the  United  States. 

IT  is  not  easy  to  define  the  term  slavery  in  the  abstract 
without  unfitting  it  for  application  to  the  great  majority 


40  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

of  the  systems  of  servitude  which  have  ever  existed. 
Especially  will  it  be  difficult  to  gain  a  correct  conception 
of  the  relation  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro  in 
North  America  previous  to  1860  by  means  of  such  a 
definition. 

The  institution  of  negro  slavery  in  the  United  States 
was  an  historical  growth,  which  was  in  some  respects 
unique.  We  shall,  therefore,  do  better  to  follow  the 
main  stages  of  that  development  than  to  attempt  at 
the  outset  any  definition  whatsoever.  We  may,  in  this 
manner,  build  up  a  true  description  of  it,  and  escape 
the  error  frequently  contained  in  the  brevity  of  a  defini 
tion  and  in  the  nature  of  an  abstract  proposition. 

It  began  its  existence,  like  most  institutions  and  re 
lations,  as  a  social  custom.  Most  of  the  historians 
First  appear-  record  the  appearance  of  a  Dutch  merchant 
e?y?n  the  Brit-  ship  at  Jamestown,  in  the  year  1619,  having 
AmeiSanrcoE  negroes  on  board,  and  inform  us  that  twenty 
onies.  of  them  were  sold  to  the  colonists.  What 

title  the  Dutch  traders  had  to  such  property,  exactly 
what  they  sold  to  the  colonists,  and  what  rights  the  col 
onists  acquired  in  or  over  such  property,  were  defined, 
guaranteed,  and  secured  by  no  existing  statutes.  If  any 
of  the  parties  to  the  transaction  reflected  upon  these 
subjects  at  all,  they  must  have  supposed  that  the  right 
of  possession  and  the  freedom  of  contract  covered  the 
whole  case.  There  is  certainly  no  evidence  that  any  of 
these  parties,  or  anybody  else,  had  the  faintest  concep 
tion  that  the  law  of  any  state,  or  any  principle  of  natural 
justice,  or  of  reason,  was  violated  or  impaired  by  the 
procedure  or  the  results  of  the  procedure. 

Early  theory    T,  ^»        -i  i  •  -n  j    i  T  i      T 

of  the  benefits  It  was  a  firmly  and  universally  established 
opinion  of  the  time  that  the  attachment  of 
infidels  to  Christians  in  the  relation  of  servant  to  mas 
ter  was  vastly  beneficial  to  the  infidel,  certainly  so  when 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820          41 

the  infidel  was  also  a  barbarian,  and  was  taken  out  of 
slavery  to  a  barbarian  master,  as  was  the  case  in  respect 
to  almost  all  of  the  negroes  brought  to  the  English 
colonies  in  North  America. 

We  cannot  dismiss  this  opinion  as  one  of  the  errors  of 
the  dark  ages.  It  lives  to-day  as  a  principle  of  modern 
political  science  and  practical  politics,  under  the  form 
of  statement  that  civilized  people  have  the  right  and 
duty  to  impose  civilization  upon  uncivilized  populations 
by  whatever  means  they  may  deem  to  be  just  and  proper. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  negroes 
transferred  from  slavery  in  Africa  to  slavery  in  the 
English-  American  colonies  themselves  felt  the  amelio 
ration  of  their  condition,  and  were,  in  general,  entirely 
contented  with  their  new  lot. 

The  relation  was  established  in  the  Northern  colonies, 
as  well  as  in  the  Southern,  in  the  early  years  of  their 
existence,  and  it  was  in  Massachusetts  rather 

,    .,     _  The  earliest 

than  in  Virginia  that  it  first  received  legal  legal  recogni- 


recognition,  and  began  to  be  changed  from  a 
purely  domestic  institution  by  suffering  gov-  r 
ernmental  regulation.  In  the  Massachusetts  "  Funda 
mentals,"  or  "Body  of  Liberties,"  passed  by  the  General 
Court  in  1641,  the  slavery  of  negroes  and  Indians,  and 
the  slave-trade,  were  expressly  legalized.  In  fact,  so  far 
as  the  colonists  themselves  were  responsible  for  the  in 
troduction  of  negro  slavery  among  them,  the  impartial 
historian  must  place  the  greater  blame  upon  a  Northern 
colony.  Its  citizens  were  first  to  develop  commerce, 
and  it  was  their  ships  which  brought  the  slave  cargoes 
from  the  coasts  of  Africa  to  all  of  the  colonies. 

The  negroes  were  not,  however,  fitted  for  labor  in  the 
Northern  colonies.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  too  cold 
for  them  to  thrive  there.  A  warm,  moist  air  is  the 
natural  climate  for  the  negro.  In  the  second  place,  the 


42  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

work  to  be  done  in  these  sections  was  not  suited  to  his 
capacity.     The  Northern  colonies  had  not,  indeed,  at 

Northern  that  early  day,  developed  the  finer  forms  of 
wennieadapte°d  industry  which  have  subsequently  distin- 
tonegroiabor.  guisned  that  part  of  the  country.  They 
were  then,  as  to  their  internal  pursuits,  almost  as  com 
pletely  agricultural  as  the  colonies  of  the  South.  But 
their  farming  required  a  great  deal  more  of  intelligence, 
thrift,  and  industry  in  the  laborer  than  the  negro  of 
that  day  possessed.  The  country  was  broken,  the  good 
soil  was  limited  in  amount,  the  weather  was  capricious, 
and  the  management  of  the  crops  demanded  judgment 

The  south-  and  discretion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  vast 
wSi  adapted  leve^  areas  of  good  soil,  the  warm,  uniform 
to  negro  labor.  ciimato,  and  the  simple  crops  of  the  Southern 
colonies  furnished  the  conditions  favorable  to  the  em 
ployment  of  negro  labor. 

It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the  rich  swamp-lands  of  these 
colonies    could   ever    have    been   reclaimed   and   made 

Negro  siav-  tributary  to  the  civilization  of  the  world  in 
rSyneSty  anJ  waJ  but  bJ  tne  employment  of  negro 
in  the  south,  labor.  And  it  is  no  easier  to  see  how  the 
pure  negro  could  then  have  been  brought  to  do  this 
great  work  save  through  slavery  to  the  white  race,  save 
by  being  forced  to  contribute  the  muscular  effort,  under 
the  direction  of  the  superior  intelligence  of  the  white 
race,  to  the  realization  of  objects  determined  by  that 
superior  intelligence.  The  negro  is  proof  against  ma 
laria,  and  thrives  under  the  burning  sun.  The  white 
man  is  destroyed  by  the  former  and  greatly  disabled  by 
the  latter.  And  the  pure  negro  would  not  at  that  period 
of  his  development  labor  voluntarily.  These  were  the 
elements  of  the  problem  which  confronted  those  who 
undertook  to  subject  the  vast  marshes  of  the  Southern 
colonies  to  cultivation  and  to  prepare  them  for  the  pro- 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820         43 

duction  of  their  most  valuable  contributions  to  the  com 
forts  of  civilized  man.  The  solution  of  the  problem 
was  negro  slavery. 

We  are  most  of  us  inclined,  at  this  day,  to  hold  that 
this  was  an  erroneous  solution,  and  that  we  could  have 
discovered  a  better  one ;  but  it  was  the  solu-      Wag 
tion   which   was   reached,  and   we   shall   be  slavery  an  er- 

.„  T   .,      -,  ror  and  an  evil 

wiser  if  we  seek  to  understand  it  clearly,  in-  from  the  first? 
stead  of  wasting  our  energies  in  its  condemnation,  re 
membering  that  many  of  the  things  of  the  past,  which, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  present,  we  are  prone  to 
regard  as  error,  and  even  as  sin,  are  only  anachronisms. 
In  fact,  those  who  founded  the  colony  of  Georgia  thought 
then  that  they  had  a  better  solution  of  the  problem. 
They  prohibited  slavery  at  the  outset  from  that  colony. 
In  fourteen  years  they  came  to  regard  this  act  as  a  great 
mistake,  and  the  noblest  spirits  among  them  acknowl 
edged  themselves  in  error,  and  joined  in  the  movement 
for  the  introduction  of  negro  slave-labor. 

The  conditions  above  mentioned  were  undoubtedly 
the  chief  causes  of  the  more  rapid  and  pronounced  de 
velopment  of  negro  slavery  in  the  Southern  slavery  leg- 
colonies.  And  that  more  rapid  and  pro-  southern^oK 
nounced  development  directs  us  rather  to  the  nies- 
legislation  of  the  Southern  colonies  than  to  that  of  the 
Northern,  in  following  the  legalization  of  the  relation. 

Virginia  naturally  took  the  lead,  and  furnished  the 
precedents  for  the  others.  The  first  question,  both  as 
to  time  and  importance,  which  required  legislative 
treatment,  was  the  question  of  the  status  of  the  chil 
dren  of  slaves.  Where  legalized  marriage  does  not  ex 
ist,  the  only  certainty  in  respect  to  parentage  is  attained 
by  regarding  the  mother.  Rights  and  status  in  such  a 
condition  of  society  are,  therefore,  transmitted  through 
the  female  line.  Partus  sequitur  ventrem  is  the  rule 


44  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

not  only  of  the  civil  law,  but  of  every  system  of  law 

regulating  the  accidents  of  descent  among  people  where 

Partus    ee-  ^e  ming^ng  °f  the  sexes  is  not  controlled 

quitur  ven-  by  civilized  marriage.     Insuperable  obstacles 

present  themselves  in  the  attempt  to  apply 
any  other  rule.  It  was  no  unusual  or  arbitrary  enact 
ment  of  the  Virginia  legislature  which,  in  1662,,  pre 
scribed  the  rule  that  the  status  of  the  slave  mother 
should  determine  that  of  her  offspring.  This  rule  was 
followed  in  all  the  colonies,  and  many  of  them  enacted 
it  into  statute  law. 

So  long  as  the  slaves  were  few  in  number  and  were 
not  Christians  the  necessity  for  legislation  defining  the 

slave  class  was  not  felt ;  but  so  soon  as  the 

Definitions 

of  the  slave  slave-trade  became  more  active,  and^  slaves 
began  to  receive  Christian  baptism,  the  old 
customary  test  in  regard  to  this  matter,  that  of  infidelity 
or  heathenism,  would  no  longer  suffice.  The  colonists 
of  that  day  were  too  conscientious  to  cut  the  knot  of  this 
difficulty  by  denying  Christian  baptism  to  any  one  seek 
ing  it.  They  considered  it  their  prime  duty  to  lead 
the  heathen  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ.  It  is  evident 
that  their  consciences  were  greatly  troubled  over  the 
question  of  the  effect  of  Christian  baptism  upon  the 
slave  status.  The  colonial  legislatures,  the  Home  Gov 
ernment,  and  the  Bishop  of  London  were  appealed  to 
for  counsel  in  the  dilemma.  The  answers  received 
from  all  of  these  were  to  the  effect  that  the  status  of 
the  slave  was  not  changed  by  Christian  baptism  or  con 
version. 

The  test  of  the  slave  status  was  then  necessarily  fixed 
by  legislation.  The  Virginia  statute  declared  all  ser 
vants  brought  into  the  country  by  land  or  sea,  who 
were  not  Christians  in  their  native  country  at  the  time 
when  they  were  purchased  or  procured,  nor  free  in 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATES    BEFORE   1820          45 

England  or  some  other  Christian  country,  to  be  slaves. 

Exception   was   made   of  Turks  and   Moors   in   amity 

with  the  King.     This  statute,  taken  together 

with  the  rule  partus  sequitur  ventrem,  which  the  slave  sta- 

rule  was  re-enacted,  became  the  test  of  the  by   the   vir- 

slave  class.     At  the  same  time  heavy  penal-  e 

ties  were  attached  to  the  marriage  or  cohabitation  of 

white  women  with  slaves. 

Of  course  it  very  soon  became  necessary  that  the  legal 
position  of  the  slave  should  be  definitely  fixed.  The 
legislature  of  Virginia  again  set  the  prece-  The  le  al 
dents.  Concisely  stated,  this  legislation  pro-  position  of  the 
vided  that  a  slave  could  have  no  standing  in 
the  ordinary  courts,  either  as  party  or  witness ;  that  a 
slave  could  own  no  property  ;  that  a  slave  owed  obe 
dience  to  the  master,  who  might  force  the  slave  to 
labor,  and  chastise  the  slave  even  to  the  extreme  of  so 
injuring  the  slave  that  the  slave  might  die  in  con 
sequence  thereof,  without  incurring  the  penalties  of 
felony  ;  that  the  slave  could  be  sold  or  inherited  as  per 
sonal  property ;  and  that  the  offspring  of  the  female 
slave  belonged  to  the  master  owning  her  at  the  time  of 
its  birth. 

The  wilful  killing  of  a  slave  by  anyone,  even  the 
master,  was  accounted  murder,  and  extraordinary  tribu 
nals,  without  a  jury,  were  constituted  for  Tendency 
the  protection  of  his  person.  The  Code  of  J^JTin  the 
1705  even  contained  regulations  which  in-  code  of  1705. 
dicated  that  the  trend  of  thought  and  of  legislation,  at 
that  juncture,  was  toward  attaching  the  slave  to  the 
soil,  which  would  have  been  a  step  upward  in  a  course, 
which,  if  consistently  followed,  would  have  made  the 
slave  a  serf.  But  the  still  prevailing  rules,  which  allowed 
the  slave  to  be  seized  and  sold  for  the  debts  of  the  master, 
and  regulated  the  inheritance  of  slaves  according  to  the 


46  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

law  governing  the  descent  of  personal  property,  seem 
to  have  completely  neutralized  that  tendency  before  the 
middle  of  the  century  had  been  reached. 

Naturally  the  private  law  accidents  of  the  relation 
were  first  developed  and  fixed,  but  very  soon  the  rights 
Pub  He  re-  and  powers  of  the  community  in  regard  to 
the*  slave8  sys-  *ne  institution  began  to  claim  attention. 
tem-  The  public  peace  and  welfare  must  be  safe 

guarded  against  the  possible  conduct  of  the  slave,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  the  master,  on  the  other. 

The  legislation  of  Virginia  set  the  example  in  these 
respects  also.  That  legislation  provided  that  no  slave 
should  have,  or  carry  arms,  or  go  outside  of  the  planta 
tion  of  his  master  without  a  pass  from  his  master,  or 
lift  his  hand  against  a  Christian  ;  that  a  sheriff  should 
arrest  a  runaway  slave  on  the  warrant  of  two  justices, 
and  might  lawfully  kill  any  slave  who  resisted  arrest  ; 
and  that  no  slave  should  be  emancipated  without  the 
consent  of  the  Governor  and  Council. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  provided  that  the  master  should 
be  responsible  for  all  damage  done  by  his  slave  at  any 
place  where  there  was  no  Christian  overseer,  and  re 
quired  that  any  master  giving  freedom  to  his  slave  should 
pay  the  cost  of  his  transportation  out  of  the  colony. 

Such  was  substantially  the  law  of  negro  slavery  in  all 

The   enerai  °^  ^e  c°l°nies  a^  the  beginning  of  the  dec- 

?awCs  in  re?  a(^e  Before  *^e  Revolution.     It  was  perhaps 

B p e c t     to  more  severe  than  this  in  South  Carolina,  and 

it  was  certainly  less  so  in  Massachusetts. 

The  objects  which  it  had  in  view  were  to  secure  the 
master's  property  in  the  slave,  to  enable  the  master  to 
hold  the  slave  in  obedience  and  force  him,  if  necessary, 
to  labor,  and  to  protect  the  public  peace  and  welfare 
against  the  abuse  of  the  relation  by  the  master,  and 
against  the  vicious  nature  of  the  slave. 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820          47 

It  does  certainly  appear  that  the  century  of  law-mak 
ing  upon  the  subject  had  not  ameliorated  the  condition 
of  the  slave.  We  must  remember,  however,  that  the 
first  stages  in  the  legalization  of  any  relation  sometimes 
make  the  situation  appear  worse  than  what  obtained 
before  the  movement  began,  although  it  may  not  be 
worse  in  fact. 

But  the  period  of  the  Revolution  brought  with  it  a 
great  change  of  view  in  regard  to  the  moral-  S]aver  and 
ity  of  slavery,  and  this  change  of  idea  pro-  Reideas 


duced   great   modifications    in    the    law    of  of  the  rights 
slavery,  all  of  which  tended  not  only  toward 
an  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  slave,  but  also 
toward  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery. 

When  we  regard  the  revolution  of  the  colonies  against 
the  motherland  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  present, 
we  can  easily  see  that  its  purpose  was  very  different  from 
that  of  the  French  Revolution.  What  it  really  sought 
and  accomplished  was  national  independence  against 
foreign  rule.  Those,  however,  who  formulated  the  creed 
of  the  Revolution  sought  its  justification  in  the  doctrine 
of  human  rights  rather  than  in  that  of  national  rights. 
The  philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  a 
humanitarian  outburst.  Politically  and  legally  it  is 
summed  up  in  the  very  misleading  propositions  that  all 
men  are  born  equal  and  are  endowed  with  freedom,  and 
that  the  people  have  the  right  to  change  or  abolish  ex 
isting  government  at  their  pleasure.  Whatever  we  may 
think  of  these  doctrines  now,  our  ancestors  professed  to 
believe  in  them,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
sincerity  of  their  profession,  so  far  as  their  own  con 
sciousness  went.  They  saw  also  the  inconsistency  of 
slavery  with  these  doctrines,  and  quickly  came  to  regard 
slavery  as  an  evil  which  should  be  removed  as  soon  as 
possible. 


48  THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

The  Continental  Congress  took  the  first  step  in  this 
direction.  Two  years  before  it  declared  independence 
First  prohi-  it  prohibited  any  further  importation  of 
slave onimpoi>  slaves,  and  repeated  the  prohibition  two  years 
tation.  later.  These  acts  are  good  evidence  that,  at 

the  moment,  the  question  of  slavery  was  regarded  as  a 
matter  of  national  concern, 

The  Congress  was,  however,  so  occupied  with  the 
duties  pertaining  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  that  it 
failed  to  go  forward  in  this  matter,  as  well  as  in  many 
other  matters  of  national  concern  ;  and  when  the  Con 
federate  Congress  succeeded  the  Continental  Congress, 
it  did  so  upon  the  basis  of  a  written  constitution,  or 
rather  articles  of  union,  which  vested  no  powers  whatso 
ever  in  it  over  the  subject  of  slavery. 

The  separate  colonies,  now  become  "States "by  the 
theory  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  took  up  the 
Abolition  of  question.  Massachusetts  abolished  slavery 
substantially  by  her  constitution  'of  1780. 
after  Pennsylvania  provided  for  gradual  emanci- 
S  th^Slevoh?  Pati°n  by  a  statute  of  the  same  year.  Ehode 
tfon.  Island,  Connecticut,  and  New  Hampshire  fol 

lowed  the  example  of  Pennsylvania.  And  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Virginia  forbade 
any  further  importation  of  slaves. 

Under  such  impulses  and  influences  the  Confederate 
Congress,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  no  power  in  respect 
The  Ordi-  *°  slavery  had  been  conferred  upon  it,  as- 
nanceof  178T.  sume.d  to  pass  the  famous  Ordinance  of  1787, 
decreeing  the  free  status  exclusively  in  all  of  the  territory 
then  belonging  to  the  United  States  north  of  the  Ohio 
River.  The  power  to  enact  the  Ordinance  could  not 
even  be  derived  by  the  most  generous  principles  of^mpli- 
cation  from  any  provision  in  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion.  To  justify  the  exercise  of  it  by  the  Confederate 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820          49 

Congress  it  is  necessary  to  go  back  to  the  general  prin 
ciple  of  political  science  that,  as  there  was  no  govern 
ment  for  this  territory  but  the  Confederate  Congress, 
and  as  there  were  no  limitations  in  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation  upon  the  powers  of  the  Congress  in  this 
territory,  the  powers  of  that  Congress  must  have  ex 
tended  in  this  territory  to  all  subjects  usually  regulated 
by  government. 

The  claim  sometimes  made  that  this  Ordinance  was  a 
treaty  between  the  "States"  forming  the  Confedera 
tion,  or  between  them  and  the  "  States"  to  be  formed 
out  of  that  territory  in  the  future,  is  altogether  untena 
ble.  It  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  legislative  act 
of  the  Congress. 

It  is  an  incontrovertible  proof  of  the  universality  and 
intensity  of  the  opposition  to  the  farther  spread  of 
slavery  that  the  common  consciousness  of  the  age 
acquiesced  in  this  most  latitudinarian  construction  of 
the  powers  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  and  that  the 
Congress  itself  voted  the  measure  with  but  a  single  dis 
senting  voice. 

At  the  same  moment  that  this  measure  was  being  con 
sidered  in  the  Congress,  the  Constitutional  Convention, 
sitting  at  Philadelphia,  was  framing  the  na 
tional  Constitution   of   1787.     The  attitude  theaSmst?tu- 
which  the  nation  would  assume  in  this  new  i 
instrument   of   its   organic  law  toward   the   subject  of 
slavery  was  one  of  the  most,  if  not  the  most,  important 
of  the  questions  which  the  Convention  was  called  upon 
to  consider. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  men  of  1787  had 
come  to  regard  the  question  of  the  rights  of  man  a  little 
more  calmly  than  they  did  during  the  heat  of  the  battle 
with  the  motherland.  In  Luther  Martin's  famous  let 
ter  to  the  legislature  of  Maryland  upon  the  work  of  the 
3 


50  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Convention  of  1787,  a  very  significant  passage  concern 
ing  the  existing  views  upon  slavery  occurs.  He  wrote  : 
"  At  this  time  we  do  not  generally  hold  this  commerce" 
(the  slave-trade)  "in  so  great  abhorrence  as  we  have 
done.  When  our  liberties  were  at  stake  we  warmly  felt 
for  the  common  rights  of  men.  The  danger  being 
thought  to  be  past  which  threatened  ourselves  we  are 
daily  growing  more  insensible  to  those  rights." 

The  Constitution  of  1787  contains  evidence  of  the 
correctness  of  this  statement.  Among  its  provisions 
were  to  be  found  three  most  important  compromises 
with  the  slavery  interest,  three  most  important  recogni 
tions  of  slavery.  The  first  was  political  in  its  nature. 
It  counted  the  negro  for  three-fifths  of  the  white  man 
in  the  distribution  of  the  representation  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  in  the  Presidential  Electoral  Col 
leges.  The  second  was  commercial  in  its  nature.  It 
forbade  the  Congress  to  prohibit,  before  the  year  1808, 
the  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  the  ex 
isting  "  States"  might  see  fit  to  admit.  The  third  was 
a  direct  guarantee  of  slave  property.  It  required  the 
surrender  to  his  master  of  an  escaped  slave  wherever 
found  in  the  United  States.  These  were  most  momen 
tous  provisions.  They  secured  slave  property,  increased 
slave  property,  and  made  slavery  a  vast  political  power 
in  the  hands  of  the  slave-masters.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  clock  of  the  ages  was  turned  back  full  half  a 
century  in  regard  to  this  great  question  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  1787. 

From  1787  to  1808  the  reactionary  course  was  pur 
sued  almost  without  a  single  break.  Kentucky  was 
made  a  Commonwealth  with  the  slave  status.  The  Con 
gress  accepted  from  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  cessions 
of  the  territory  which  lay  to  the  west  of  them,  and  which 
they  claimed  as  belonging  to  them,  with  a  condition 


SLAVERY   IN   THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820          51 

that  slavery  should  not  be  forbidden  therein  by  Con 
gress.  The  slave  Commonwealth  of  Tennessee  was  im 
mediately  formed  out  of  a  part  of  this  terri-  Reaction 
tory.  The  vast  territory  of  Louisiana,  in 
which  slavery  existed  wherever  it  was  in- 
habited,  was  added  to  the  domain  of  the  tion- 
Union.  The  District  of  Columbia,  the  seat  of  the  gen 
eral  Government,  was  made  a  slave-holding  commu 
nity,  through  the  adoption  by  Congress  of  the  laws  of 
Maryland  as  the  code  of  the  District.  A  fugitive  slave- 
law  was  passed  by  Congress,  which  enabled  any  white 
man  to  seize,  as  his  slave,  any  man  of  color,  and  bring 
him  before  any  magistrate,  and,  upon  proof  satisfactory 
to  the  latter,  to  demand  such  papers  and  certificates  as 
would  legally  warrant  him  in  reclaiming  the  slave  and 
transporting  him  to  the  place  whence  he  was  said  to 
have  escaped  ;  and  petitions  to  Congress  complaining  of 
the  abuse  of  this  arbitrary  power  were  laid  aside  without 
consideration.  Even  the  Territory  of  Indiana  prayed 
Congress  to  suspend  for  it  that  part  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787  which  forbade  slavery  within  its  limits.  And 
South  Carolina  abolished  her  law  against  the  impor 
tation  of  slaves,  and  opened  the  way  wide  for  a  vast  in 
crease  of  the  slave  population. 

These  last  acts  seem  to  have  aroused  the  conscious 
ness  of  the  Congress  to  the  rapidity  with  which  the 
whole  country  was  becoming  again  subject  to  Abolition  of 
the  slave-holding  interests.  The  Congress  Jfi^tStef? 
resisted  the  importunities  of  the  Indiana  lead-  congress, 
ers,  and  after  giving  South  Carolina  a  reasonable  time 
to  re-enact  her  law  abolishing  the  foreign  slave-trade, 
without  effect,  proceeded  itself  to  abolish  the  trade  from 
the  first  moment  that  the  Constitution  permitted  this 
to  be  done,  from  January  1st,  1808. 

It  has  been  customary  to  ascribe  the  great  revulsion 


52  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

of  view  in  regard  to  slavery,  which  certainly  manifested 

itself  everywhere  in  the  United  States  between   1790 

and   1807,   to  cotton  culture   and   the   cot- 

Cotton  CUlt-      i  •  mi          •,.».! 

ure  and  the  ton-gin.  The  invention  of  the  cotton-gm, 
'ton-gin.  in  the  first  part  of  the  last  decade  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  the  increased  demand  for  cot 
ton  fabrics  throughout  the  world,  had  made  the  cul 
tivation  of  cotton  highly  profitable.  An  increase  in 
cotton  culture  was  naturally  encouraged  by  such  en 
hanced  profits,  and  this  tendency  produced  an  increased 
demand  for  negro  labor  and  for  new  lands,  since  the  cot 
ton  crop  requires  a  warm  climate  and  low  lands,  and  ex 
hausts  the  soil  very  rapidly.  Those  parts  of  the  country 
adapted  to  cot  ton-raising  felt,  therefore,  a  renewed  inter 
est  in  the  increase  of  negro  labor  and  in  territorial  exten 
sion.  And  those  parts  not  so  adapted  felt  an  indirect 
interest  in  the  same,  since  the  increased  and  still  increas 
ing  profits  of  the  cotton  culture  made  a  market  for  their 
slaves  and  a  carrying  trade  for  their  shipowners.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  such  was  the  main  cause  of  the  great 
change  of  view  in  regard  to  the  question  of  negro  slavery 
which  the  country  experienced  between  1790  and  1810, 
but  it  was  not  the  sole  cause.  It  was  inevitable  that, 
when  the  men  of  that  era  passed  out  of  the  excited  state 
The  effect  °^  m^n^  an(^  feeling  produced  by  the  War 
of  the  return  with  the  motherland,  and  came  to  the  task 

to  the  arts  of  .         ,,_,,•  f 

peavce  upon  ot  re-establishing  the  relations  01  peace  and 

the  ideas  con-  ,       ,.„  ?,        .  ,,  i        in 

cerning  siav-  everv-day  life  and  business,  they  should  regain 
a  calmness  of  judgment,  a  respect  for  vest 
ed  rights,  and  a  regard  for  customary  relations,  which 
placed  the  political  philosophy  of  1776  under  many 
limitations  and  qualifications,  some  of  which,  certainly, 
were  sound  and  valuable.  It  is  only  when  we  take  all 
of  these  considerations  together  that  we  comprehend 
the  reasoning  of  the  men  of  the  first  decade  of  this  cen- 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  STATES   BEFORE  1820         53 

tury  upon  the  great  question.  They  saw  a  great  in 
terest  developing  which  was  bringing  wealth  and  com 
fort  into  an  impoverished  country.  They  knew  that  it 
could  be  then  sustained  only  by  negro  labor.  They  did 
not  believe  that  the  negro  would  work  unless  forced  to 
it  by  the  white  man.  They  thought  it  was  better  for 
the  negro  himself  to  have  food,  clothing,,  and  shelter,  in 
slavery,  than  to  starve,  or  become  a  robber,  in  liberty. 
They  felt,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  slavery  of  one 
human  being  to  another  was  an  exceptional  relation  in  a 
political  system  which  rested  its  own  right  to  indepen 
dent  existence  upon  the  doctrine  of  human  freedom. 
It  is  not  at  all,  then,  unnatural  that  they  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  further  importations  of  the  bar 
barians  from  Africa  was  the  only  solution  of  the  ques 
tion  for  which  the  time  was  ripe.  They  sincerely  be 
lieved  that  they  would  place  themselves  and  their  slaves 
in  a  far  more  advantageous  position  for  the  gradual 
elevation  of  the  latter  by  having  to  deal  only  with 
negroes  born  and  reared  amid  civilized  surroundings, 
and  that  freedom  would  finally  be  attained  by  all,  as  the 
result  of  a  gradual  advancement  in  intelligence,  morals, 
and  industry,  and  would  be  thus  attained  without  any 
shock  to  the  civilization  and  welfare  of  the  country.^ 

This  appeared  to  the  men  of  that  day,  both  of  the 
North  and  of  the  South,  to  be  the  only  safe  way  to  pro 
ceed  in  solving  the  question  of  the  relation  between  the 
highly  civilized  Anglo-American  race  and  the  grossly 
barbaric  negro  race  in  the  United  States.  AYe  think 
now  that  they  might  have  done  better,  and  some  of  the 
more  unsympathetic  critics  of  our  history  affirm  that 
they  did  nothing  of  any  consequence,  and  that  in  what 
they  did  do  they  acted  with  a  consciously  deceptive 
purpose.  There  may  have  been  a  few  to  whom  this 
criticism  can  be  justly  applied,  but  there  is  no  suffi- 


54  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

cient  evidence  that  the  mass  of  them  were  insincere 
either  in  act  or  thought.  The  contention  that  they 
were  is  more  partisan  than  truly  historical. 

The  decade  between  1807  and  1817  was  filled  with  the 
questions  of  foreign  relations,  of  foreign  war,  and  of  the 

slavery  dur-  results  of  foreign  war.  The  suspension,  and 
i8?2baMathe  then  the  almost  entire  destruction,  of  foreign 
ffif  «3*jl5  commerce  by  the  British  Orders  in  Council, 
after  this  war.  the  Napoleonic  decrees,  the  JeSersonian  em 
bargo,  and  the  War  of  1812,  reduced  the  exportation  in 
cotton  from  about  fifty  millions  of  pounds  in  1807  to 
less  than  twenty  millions  of  pounds  in  1814.  The  pe 
cuniary  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  slavery  declined 
thus  quite  materially,  and  the  majority  of  the  leading 
men,  both  North  and  South,  still  regarded  negro  slavery 
as  only  a  temporary  status,  which  would  be  gradually 
modified  in  the  direction  of  freedom. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  however,  the  slavery  inter 
est  was  steadily  waxing  in  influence  and  power  through - 

siaver  in  out  ^s  period.  First  of  all  the  existence 
the  Louisiana  and  the  extension  of  slavery  in  the  vast  ter 
ritory  purchased  from  France  was  secured. 
The  custom  of  slave-holding  had  been  introduced  into 
this  territory  by  the  French  and  Spanish  immigrants, 
while  it  was  in  the  possession  of  France  and  Spain,  be 
fore  the  year  1800.  In  that  year  Spain,  as  we  have  seen, 
receded  it  to  France.  Nine  years  before  this  date, 
slavery  had  been  abolished  in  France  by  the  National 
Assembly.  It  is  certainly  a  question,  then,  whether  the 
re-establishment  of  French  supremacy  over  Louisiana  in 
]  800  did  not  produce  the  abolition  of  slavery  there.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  France  was  at  that  moment 
subject  to  the  consular  government  of  Bonaparte,  and 
that  the  Consul  was  not  an  enthusiast  for  the  revolution 
ary  ideals.  He  did  not  disturb  the  custom  of  slave-holding 


SLAVEEY   IN   THE   STATES   BEFOKE   1820        "55 

in  Louisiana,  and  when  he  ceded  this  vast  territory  to 
the  United  States,  in  1803,  the  custom  existed  in  all  its 
inhabited  parts.  The  Treaty  of  cession  contained  a 
provision  which  pledged  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  uphold  the  rights  of  property  of  the  inhabi 
tants  of  the  province.  It  can  be  fairly  said,  therefore, 
that  the  United  States  Government  obligated  itself  to 
France  to  maintain  slavery  within  the  territory  ceded 
until  it  should  be  erected  into  a  Commonwealth,  or  into 
Commonwealths,  of  the  Union. 

The  United  States  Government  might  have  violated 
the  Treaty,  if  it  had  chosen  to  do  so,  and  the  question 
then  raised  would  have  been  one  of  a  purely  diplomatic 
or  international  character.  There  would  have  been  no 
question  of  constitutional  power  involved.  The  act  of 
the  United  States  Government  breaking  the  Treaty 
would  have  been  the  law  of  the  land  for  the  inhabitants 
of  this  territory. 

The  United  States  Government,  however,  not  only 
permitted  the  continuance  of  the  custom  of  slave-hold 
ing  in  Louisiana,  but  when,  in  1804,  Congress  divided 
this  vast  region  into  two  parts  by  the  thirty-third  par 
allel  of  latitude,  and  organized  the  southern  portion  as 
the  Territory  of  Orleans,  and  placed  the  northern  por 
tion  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Governor  and  judges 
of  the  Territory  of  Indiana,  it,  at  the  same  time,  author 
ized  citizens  of  the  United  States  immigrating  into  the 
Territory  of  Orleans,  for  the  purpose  of  actual  settlement, 
to  take  their  slaves  with  them,  and  provided  that  the 
French  laws  in  force  at  the  date  of  the  division  should 
continue  in  the  northern  part  until  repealed  or  modified 
by  the  Governor  and  judges  of  Indiana  Territory.  Any 
danger  to  slavery  in  this  district  of  Louisiana,  which 
might  be  contained  in  the  power  vested  by  Congress  in 
the  Governor  and  judges  of  the  Territory  of  Indiana  to 


56  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

repeal  or  modify  the  French  laws  which  Congress  had 
allowed  to  continue  in  the  district,  was  overcome,  the 
following  year,  by  the  independent  organization  of  this 
district  as  the  Territory  of  Louisiana,  and  by  a  provision 
in  the  Act  of  Congress  effecting  this  organization,  which 
provided  for  the  continuance  in  force  of  the  laws  of  the 
district,  until  repealed  or  modified  by  the  legislature  of 
the  Territory. 

When,  therefore,  in  1812,  the  Territory  of  Orleans 
was  erected  into  the  Commonwealth  of  Louisiana,  and 
the  name  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  was  changed  to 
Missouri,  there  was  no  question  about  the  status  of  the 
new  Commonwealth.  It  was,  both  in  fact  and  in  law,  a 
slave-holding  Commonwealth  ;  and  the  custom  of  slave- 
holding  was  perpetuated  in  the  newly  named  Territory 
by  the  provision  in  the  Act  of  Congress  that  the  laws 
and  regulations  of  the  Territory  of  Louisiana  should 
remain  in  force  in  the  Territory  of  Missouri  until  re 
pealed  or  modified  by  the  legislature  of  the  Territory  of 
Missouri. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  had  entered 

into  obligations  with  North  Carolina   and  Georgia,  as 

we  have  seen,  not  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the 

the    territory  territory  ceded  by  them  to  the  United  States. 

Carolina"  Tnd  Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  binding  force 

of  any  such  agreement  from  a  legal  point  of 

view,  certainly  from  an  ethical  point  of  view  it  could 

have  been  urged  that  the  Government  would  have  broken 

faith  with  some  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  had 

the  Congress  disregarded  this  understanding. 

It  cannot,  however,  be  contended  that  there  was  any 
obligation,  legal  or  moral,  resting  upon  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  toward  any  of  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  or  any  of  the  Commonwealths,  to  main 
tain  slavery  in  the  province  of  Louisiana  and  in  the 


SLAVERY   IN  THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820         57 

Territories  carved  out  of  it.  There  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  provision  in  the  Treaty  of  cession  of  1803,  by 
which  the  United  States  Government  obli-  slavery  in 
gated  itself  to  France  to  protect  the  property 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  province.  But  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  was  under  garth  d  garo- 
no  obligation  to  any  citizen  of  the  United  gia  cessions. 
States,  or  to  any  Commonwealth  of  the  Union,  to  keep 
this  Treaty  inviolate.  It  may  be  affirmed,  then,  that  the 
United  States  Government  had,  in  the  case  of  Louisiana, 
for  the  first  time,  permitted  and  maintained  slavery  in 
territory  where  it  was  perfectly  free  to  act  in  regard  to 
this  subject  as  it  would,  in  so  far  as  its  own  citizens 
were  concerned.  This  certainly  manifested  a  great  in 
crease  in  the  power  of  the  slave-holders  over  the  general 
Government. 

In  consequence  of  this  vast  territorial  extension  of 
slavery  the  interest  of  the  more  Northern  of  the  old 
slave-holding  Commonwealths  in  slavery  was,  Interest  in 
during  this  period,  greatly  re-enlivened. 


Maryland  and  Virginia  were  already,  in  1807,   Virginia    in- 

±      i      i       -j.1       i  rrvu  •  f    creased  by  the 

overstocked  with  slaves.  The  opening  up  of  acquisition  of 
the  virgin  lands  of  the  Southwest  to  the  im 
migration  of  masters  and  slaves  from  the  older  Common 
wealths,  and  the  abolition  of  the  foreign  slave-trade, 
now  made  the  Southwest  an  excellent  market  for  the 
surplus  slave  population  of  these  older  Commonwealths. 
The  domestic  slave-trade  began  now  to  be  one  of  the 
chief  sources  of  the  wealth  of  Maryland  and  Virginia 
especially.  Those  who  participated  in  this  The  domes. 
traffic  justified  it  by  the  claim  that  it  was  tic  slave-trade. 
better  for  the  slaves  themselves  to  be  removed  to  new 
homes,  where  they  could  be  better  supported,  than  to  be 
kept  in  their  old  homes  and  suffer  for  the  want  of  the 
necessaries  of  life,  and  that  the  distribution  of  the  slave 


58  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

population  over  a  larger  area  would  make  future  eman 
cipation  easier,  and  less  dangerous  to  the  supremacy  of 
the  white  race.  There  was  a  certain  force  in  this  rea 
soning.  The  mass  of  the  slave-holders  seem  to  have  been 
fully  convinced  of  its  soundness,  although  it  did  not  en 
tirely  quiet  the  consciences  of  the  best  men  among  them 
to  the  many  painful  incidents  connected  with  the  sepa 
ration  of  the  slaves,  made  subject  to  this  traffic,  from 
their  old  homes  and  associations. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  however,  that  the  raising  of  negro 
slaves,  having  become  a  most  profitable  industry  in  the 
older  Commonwealths,  acted  as  a  vast  bribe  upon  the 
ideas  of  men  in  regard  to  the  questions  of  the  perpetua 
tion  and  extension  of  slavery,  and  beclouded  their  con 
sciences  in  respect  thereto. 

Finally,  the  capture  and  abduction  of  negro  slaves  by 
the  British  forces  during  the  War  of  1812,  and  the  de 
mand  of  the  slave-holders  that  the  United 

The  relation    ~ 

of  slavery  to   States  Government  should  secure  the  restitu- 

the  diplomacy    , .  „    , ,     .        ,  ,  •         c        ,  i 

of  the  United  tion  oi  their  slaves,  or  compensation  for  the 
loss  of  them,  from  the  British  Government, 
moved  the  United  States  Government  to  assume  its  atti 
tude  toward  slavery  in  the  administration  of  the  inter 
national  affairs  of  the  country.  The  cardinal  political 
principle  of  the  slave-holding  statesmen,  at  that  period, 
was  that  slavery  was  a  "  State  "  matter  with  which  the 
United  States  Government  had  no  concern,  and  in  regard 
to  which  it  had  no  powers.  This  appeal  to  the  Govern 
ment  to  voice  and  enforce  their  demands  against  Great 
Britain  in  respect  to  their  slave  property  has  seemed, 
therefore,  to  some  of  the  later  and  more  radical  critics 
of  American  history  to  have  been  a  gross  inconsistency, 
and  they  have  represented  it  as  a  proof  of  the  insincerity 
of  the  slave-holders  wherever  their  pecuniary  interests 
were  involved. 


SLAVERY   IN  THE   STATES   BEFORE   1820         59 

This  criticism  is  rather  taking,  but  a  sound  view  of 
the  Constitution  will  hardly  support  it.  In  making  the 
United  States  Government  the  exclusive  organ  for  deal 
ing  with  foreign  countries,  the  Constitution  impliedly 
confers  upon  that  Government  a  protectorate  against  for 
eign  states  over  interests  which  are  regulated,  internally, 
only  by  the  powers  of  the  respective  Commonwealths  of 
the  Union.  It  is  true  that  this  doctrine  rests  upon  a  na 
tional  view  of  the  federal  system  of  government  in  the 
United  States,  a  view  which  the  slave-holding  statesmen 
did  not  later  share.  From  their  later  particularistic  prin 
ciple  of  the  fundamental  character  of  the  Union,  such  a 
general  protectorate  over  "  State  "  interests  by  the  United 
States  Government  against  foreign  countries  could 
hardly  be  inferred  from  the  Constitution.  If  this  prin 
ciple  could  be  assumed  by  these  critics  as  having  been 
held  at  that  time  by  the  slave-holding  statesmen,  their 
charge  of  inconsistency,  if  not  of  insincerity,  would  be 
fairly  made  out.  But  such,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not 
the  case.  Many  of  the  slave-holding  statesmen  of  1816 
were  stronger  in  the  national  view  of  the  character  of 
the  Union  than  were  the  statesmen  of  New  England  it 
self. 

The  United  States  Government  recognized  its  duty 
to  extend  the  protection  demanded  in  the  case,  and  it 
secured  from  the  British  Government  compensation  to 
the  masters  for  the  loss  of  slave  property  occasioned  by 
the  acts  of  the  British  officers  during  the  War. 

Such  was  the  status  of  the  slavery  question  at  the 
close  of  the  War  of  1812-15,  at  the  commencement, 
therefore,  of  the  period  when,  withdrawing  themselves 
from  foreign  complications,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  began  to  adjust  the  different  parts  of  their  politi 
cal  system,  chiefly  if  not  solely,  to  the  demands  of  their 
internal  interests,  and  to  solve  the  problems  of  their 


60  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

• 

polity  irom  the  point  of  view  of  their  domestic  institu 
tions.  It  is  not  strange,  then,  that  from  this  point  of 
time  onward  the  powerful  institution  of  negro  slavery 
recognized  more  and  more  clearly  its  natural  relations 
to  all  of  these  questions  of  internal  policy  and  law,  and 
sought  more  and  more  determinedly  to  bring  the  politi 
cal  system  and  the  policies  of  the  United  States  into 
accord  with  its  own  exclusive  interests.  For  the  first 
three  or  four  years  after  the  close  of  the  War  this 
tendency  did  not,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  appear  upon 
the  surface,  but  it  was  working  in  the  depths.  From 
1820  to  1861,  certainly,  it  furnishes  the  point  of  view 
for  the  correct  elucidation  of  the  majority  of  the  great 
problems  of  the  history  of  the  United  States. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CREATION  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  MISSOURI 

The  Growth  of  Slavery  not  Seriously  Checked  by  the  Prohibition 
of  the  Foreign  Slave-trade — The  General  Government  Power 
less  Against  Slavery  in  the  Existing  Commonwealths— The 
Powers  of  the  General  Government  in  Respect  to  Slavery  in 
the  Territories— The  Powers  of  Congress  in  the  Admission  of 
new  "States"  into  the  Union— Slavery  in  the  Missouri  Terri 
tory — The  First  Petition  from  Missouri  Territory  for  the  Per 
mission  to  form  a  Commonwealth— The  Second  Petition,  and 
the  First  Bill  in  Congress,  for  the  Admission  of  Missouri — The 
Tallmadge  Amendment  to  the  Bill— Passage  of  the  Amend 
ment  by  the  House  of  Representatives — Passage  of  the  Origi 
nal  Bill  by  the  Senate— The  Missouri  Bill  during  the  Session 
of  1819-20— M-.  Taylor's  Proposition— The  Bill  for  the  Admis 
sion  of  Maine  Reported  and  Passed  by  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives — The  Failure  of  Mr.  Taylor's  Plan— The  Missouri 
Bill  again  before  the  House  of  Representatives — Mr.  Taylor's 
Amendment  to  the  Bill — The  Independent  Missouri  Bill  of 
the  Senate — The  Refusal  of  the  Senate  to  Disconnect  the  two 
Measures — The  Conference  on  the  Subject,  and  the  First  Mis 
souri  Compromise — President  Monroe's  Approval  of  the  Com 
promise — Review  of  the  Points  Involved  in  the  Contest — The 
Revival  of  the  Missouri  Struggle — The  Missouri  Constitution 
in  Congress— Mr.  Lowndes's  Bill  for  the  Admission  of  Missouri 
with  the  Instrument  Unchanged — Defeat  of  the  Lowndes  Bill 
in  the  House— Passage  of  the  Senate  Bill  with  a  Proviso  by  the 
Senate— The  Senate  Bill  Tabled  by  the  House— Mr.  Clay  and 
the  Second  Missouri  Compromise — Passage  of  the  Second  Mis 
souri  Compromise  Act — The  General  Effects  of  the  Decisions 
Reached  in  the  Missouri  Question. 

ALREADY  before  the  year  1819,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  had  it  become  manifest  that  the 


62  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

influences  and  measures  relied  upon  by  the  forefathers 
for  the  ultimate  extirpation  of  negro  slavery  were  not 

The  growth  effecting  the  desired  result  in  the  Common- 
sfe8raiVoeuysTy  wealths  south  of  the  line  of  Pennsylvania 
the6  Cproh\bJ  and  of  the  Ohio-  I*  was  evident  that  the  rsv- 
for°eign°fsiave^  olutioiiary  enthusiasm  for  universal  liberty 
trade.  arid  the  rights  of  man  was  not  so  strongly 

felt  by  the  generation  which  grew  up  after  "  '76"  as  by 
the  generation  of  "  '76,"  that  the  laws  against  the  im 
portation  of  slaves  were  being  evaded,  and  that  the  slaves 
were  increasing  by  birth  many  times  more  rapidly  than 
they  were  decreasing  by  emancipation  and  removal  to 
the  colonies  of  the  American  Society  for  Emancipation. 
Moreover,  four  new  Commonwealths  had  been  estab 
lished — Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  and  Missis 
sippi — in  which  slavery  was  legalized,  and  a  fifth — 
Alabama — was  even  then  in  process  of  creation.  It  was 
manifest  from  all  sides  to  the  friends  of  universal  free 
dom  that  other  means  than  those  hitherto  relied  upon 
must  be  found,  if  any  progress  was  to  be  made  in  the 
advancement  of  liberty,  yea  if  the  evident  retrogression 
in  respect  to  this  prime  element  of  political  civilization 
was  to  be  checked. 

All  had  been  done  by  the  United  States  Government, 
however,   against  slavery  within  the  existing  Common- 

The  euerai  wea^ns  that  the  Constitution  allowed.  Be- 
Goverument  fore  anything  more  could  be  undertaken, 
against  siav-  the  Constitution  itself  would  have  to  be  so 
Sting1  com-  amended  as  to  authorize  it.  The  extraordi- 

monwealths.  ••!_•  •       n      /•         ,-t         ...... 

nary  majorities  required  for  the  initiation 
and  adoption  of  amendments  made  it  practically  im 
possible  to  effect  anything  by  such  means.  Of  the 
thirteen  original  Commonwealths,  seven  had  abolished 
slavery  and  six  had  retained  it.  To  these  had  now  been 
added  four — Vermont,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois — in 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  63 

which  slavery  was  forbidden,  and  five  in  which  it  was  per 
mitted — Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Mississippi, 
and  Alabama — making  thus  the  number  upon  each  side 
the  same.  And  although  the  population  in  the  Common 
wealths  north  of  the  line  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  Ohio 
had  outstripped,  in  increase,  that  in  those  south  of  this 
line  by  near  half  a  million  of  souls  in  thirty  years,  and 
the  representation  in  the  national  House  of  Represent 
atives  stood  consequently  in  favor  of  the  former  sec 
tion/in  the  ratio  of  104  to  79,  still  the  method  of  repre 
sentation  in  the  Senate,  and  the  equality  in  the  number 
of  the  Commonwealths  permitting,  with  those  prohibit 
ing,  slavery,  stood  firmly  in  the  way  of  any  amendment 
of  the  Constitution,  either  favorable  or  unfavorable  to 
the  slavery  interest. 

The  Constitution  furnished,  however,  an  indirect  way 
of  reaching  the  desired  result.  It  gave  the  Congress 
general  powers  within  the  Territories  and  did  The  powers 
not  restrict  these  powers  in  behalf  of  slav- 
ery.  Congress  might  thus  prohibit  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  and  the  Territories  would  Territories, 
thus  become  settled  by  a  free  population,  an  anti-slavery 
population,  which  would  form  Commonwealths  at  the 
proper  time,  in  which  the  free  status  would  be  perpe 
tuated  by  Commonwealth  law.  And  when  a  sufficient 
number  of  free  Commonwealths  had  been  thus  created 
to  give  the  necessary  majorities  to  amend  the  Constitu 
tion  in  the  direction  of  abolition,  slavery  might  be  ex 
tinguished  in  the  Commonwealths  which  had  already 
legalized  it.  But  the  first  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the 
effectiveness  of  this  line  of  action  was  the  fact  that  Con 
gress  had  already  forfeited,  in  part,  the  opportunity,  by 
failing  to  keep  the  southern  portion  of  Louisiana  Terri 
tory  under  a  Territorial  organization  until  slavery  could 
have  been  eradicated  in  it.  And  it  was  probably,  in 


64  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

1819,  already  too  late  to  attempt  to  keep  the  remaining 
parts  of  this  vast  region,  so  far  as  it  had  been  settled 
at  all,  under  Territorial  organization  until  this  result 
could  have  been  effected.  At  least,  the  advocates  of 
freedom  in  1819  evidently  thought  so,  for  they  searched 
the  Constitution  to  find  some  other  power  in  the  general 
Government  by  which  to  deal  with  the  question. 

There  was  another  provision  which  had  been  already 
several  times  applied  to  this  very  subject  and  to  other 
subjects.  It  was  the  provision  which  conferred  upon 
Congress  the  power  to  create,  or  co-operate  in  creating, 
The  powers  new  Commonwealths  out  of  the  Territories 
fhe^Tm8!?-  of  the  United  States.  This  power  is  ex- 
"  states  "into  Passed  in  general  terms,  and  in  its  employ- 
the  Union.  ment  Congress  had  imposed  a  number  of 
limitations  upon  the  powers  of  the  new  Commonwealths 
which  the  Constitution  did  not  impose  upon  those  of 
the  original  Commonwealths.  Here,  then,  was  a  possible 
way  for  those  seeking  the  advancement  of  liberty  to 
effect  their  purpose.  If  their  interpretation  of  the  Con 
stitution,  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  this  power,  was  cor 
rect,  and  they  could  only  command  the  President  and 
a  simple  majority  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  they 
could  abolish  slavery  in  every  new  Commonwealth  at  the 
time  of  its  creation,  and  make  the  continuance  of  the 
free  status  the  perpetual  condition  of  its  continued  ex 
istence  as  a  Commonwealth.  It  would  then  be  only  a 
question  of  time  when  sufficient  majorities  would  be 
secured  for  so  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  to  expel  slavery  from  the  old  Commonwealths 
through  the  regular  forms  for  constitutional  develop 
ment.  It  was  an  attractive  scheme,  and  appeared  to 
provide  the  means  for  ridding  the  country  peaceably  of 
its  great  evil  at  no  very  far  distant  day.  It  was  the  last 
possible  means  which  the  Constitution  afforded.  It  was 


THE   COMMONWEALTH    OF   MISSOURI  65 

tried  in  the  creation  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Missouri 
and  it  failed.  It  is  this  which  constitutes  the  signifi 
cance  of  the  great  movement.  The  result  attained 
made  the  abolition  of  slavery  by  the  United  States  Gov 
ernment,  through  legal  and  peaceable  means,  an  utter 
impossibility.  It  contributed,  at  least,  toward  making 
the  War  of  1861  an  historical  necessity. 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter,  slavehold- 
ing  had  become  established  by  custom  in  the  vast  region 
known  as  the  Louisiana  province,  wherever  it  was  in 
habited,  during  the  periods  when  it  belonged  to  Spain 
and  France,  and  had  been  permitted  to  continue  after 
its  acquisition  by  the  United  States  ;  and  that  in  1812 
this  province  was  divided  into  one  slave-holding  Com 
monwealth,  Louisiana,  and  one  slave-holding  Territory, 
Missouri. 

From   1812   to   1818   Congress   did   nothing   toward 
the  extinction  of  slavery  in  the  Missouri  Territory,  or 
preventing  the  free  immigration  of  masters 
with  their  slaves  into  the  Territory.    Neither  the  SssouS 
had  the  legislature  of  the  Territory  done  Territory- 
anything  touching  these  subjects.     It  may,  therefore, 
be   assumed   that   in   the   year   1818,  the    holding    of 
negroes  as  slaves  was  legal  by  custom,  if  not  by  positive 
law,  in  the  whole  of  the  Missouri  Territory,  so  far  as  it 
had   been   settled,  and   that   unless   something   should 
thereafter  be  done,  either  by  the  United  States  Govern 
ment  or  by  the  Territorial  government,  forbidding  it, 
slavery  would  be  likewise  legal  wherever  the  Territory 
might  become  settled. 

Before  the  beginning  of  the  year  1818,  the  popula 
tion  in  the  Territory  which  looked  to  the  town  of  St. 
Louis  as  its  centre  had  begun  to  agitate  the  question  of 
the  establishment  of  Commonwealth  government.  Dur 
ing  the  Congressional  session  of  1817-18,  petitions  ap- 
5 


66  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

peared  in  the  House  of  Representatives  from  this  pop 
ulation,  praying  for  the  erection  of  that  part  of  Missouri 
The  first  Territory,  bounded  roughly  by  the  thirty - 
SuBsottri  fTe£  sixth  Parallel  of  latitude  on  the  south,  the 
ritory  for  the  line  of  longitude  passing  through  the  point 

permission  to       .  _         S  T^5 

form  a  Com-  oi  confluence  oi  the  .Kansas  Itiver  and  the 
Missouri  River  on  the  west,  the  Falls  of 
the  Des  Moines  River  and  the  course  of  that  river  on 
the  north,  and  the  Mississippi  on  the  east,  into  a  Com 
monwealth  of  the  Union.  The  petitions  were  referred 
and  reported  on,  and  the  bill  presented  reached  the  stage 
for  debate  in  the  committee  of  the  "Whole  House,  but 
was  not  taken  up  during  the  session. 

Early  in  the  following  session,  that  of  1818-19,  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  presented  a 

The  second  memorial  from  the  Territorial  legislature  of 
Missouri  which  contained  substantially  the 
same  prayer  as  the  petitions  presented  at 
of  Missouri,  the  preceding  session.  This  memorial  was 
immediately  referred  to  a  committee  for  report,  but  the 
bill  which  grew  out  of  the  petitions  and  the  memorial 
was  not  brought  forward  for  debate  in  the  committee 
of  the  Whole  House  until  February  13th,  1819. 

It  was  upon  this  day,  and  during  this  first  debate,  that 
Mr.  James  Tallmadge,  of  New  York,  offered  the  famous 

The  Taii-  amendment  to  the  bill,  which  precipitated  a 
menP  to^the  discussion,  that  lasted  for  more  than  a  year, 
bm-  upon  the  great  subject  of  the  distribution  of 

powers  between  the  United  States  Government  and  the 
Commonwealths,  a  discussion  in  which  all  the  great 
legal  lights  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  participated, 
and  during  the  course  of  which  the  whole  country 
hung  with  painful  anxiety  upon  the  outcome.  It  was 
the  first  great  trial  of  the  Constitution  under  the  issue 
of  a  domestic  question,  a  question  which  threatened  to 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  67 

divide  the  country  upon  geographic  lines,  a  question 
which,  therefore,  threatened  the  dissolution  of  the 
Union. 

The  exact  words  of  this  amendment  are  essential  to, 
a  correct  comprehension  of  the  question  involved.  It 
reads  :  "  And  provided  that  the  further  introduction  of 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  be  prohibited,  except 
for  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  duly  convicted  ;  and  that  all  children  born 
within  the  said  State,  after  the  admission  thereof  into 
the  Union,  shall  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years." 

The  debate  upon  this  motion  is  not  fully  reported  in 
the  annals  of  Congress,  but  it  is  sufficiently  reported  to 
give  a  correct  idea  of  the  constitutional  ques-  The  debate 
tions  involved.  The  discussion  proceeded  S 
from  the  two  points  of  view  of  constitutional  men*- 
powers  and  public  policy.  Of  course  the  first  point  for 
the  restrictionists,  as  those  who  favored  the  amendment 
were  termed,  to  establish  was  the  constitutionality  of  the 
power  of  Congress  to  impose  this  restriction  in  erecting 
a  Territory  into  a  Commonwealth.  If  Congress  has,  or 
had,  no  such  power,  the  question  of  policy  need  not  have 
been  considered.  They  claimed  the  power,  and  based  it 
upon  that  paragraph  of  Article  IV.  section  three,  which 
reads  :  "New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  this  Union."  It  will  be  readily  seen  that  this  is  a 
very  loose  statement  concerning  the  powers  of  Congress 
in  establishing  this  most  fundamental  relation.  Taken 
apart  from  all  connections,  its  most  natural  meaning  is 
that  foreign  states  may  become  politically  joined  with 
the  United  States  by  an  Act  of  Congress,  in  so  far  as  this 
country  is  concerned.  On  the  other  hand,  taken  with 
the  context,  it  appears  to  mean  that  Congress  may  es 
tablish  Common  wealth  governments,  or,  in  the  language 


68  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

of  the  Constitution,  "  States/'  upon  the  territory  belong 
ing  to  the  United  States,  or  to  some  "  State  "  or  "  States  " 
already  within  the  Union.  This  is,  without  any  reason 
able  doubt,  its  only  meaning.  For  if  it  had  any  refer 
ence  to  the  connection  of  foreign  states  with  the  United 
States,  it  would  confer  the  most  important  diplomatic 
power  of  the  United  States  Government  upon  the 
Congress,  while  the  Constitution  certainly  confers  the 
whole  of  this  class  of  powers  upon  the  President  and 
the  Senate. 

This  was  not,  however,  the  point  at  issue  in  the  Mis 
souri  question.  That  point  was,  whether,  in  the  crea- 
The  exact  tion  of  new  Commonwealths  by  Congress 
?ulin°theafirst  upon  territory  already  within  the  Union,  and 
Mtesouriques6  subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the 
tion.  general  Government,  Congress  had  the  con 

stitutional  power  to  impose  restrictions  upon  the  new 
Commonwealths  thus  created,  which  the  Constitution 
did  not  impose  upon  the  original  Commonwealths.  The 
restrictionists,  led  by  Mr.  Tallmadge  and  Mr.  Taylor, 
of  New  York,  and  Mr.  Fuller,  of  Massachusetts,  con 
tended  that  Congress  possessed  this  power.  Their  ar 
gument,  reduced  to  a  pair  of  propositions,  was,  that  the 
Constitution  did  not  require  Congress  to  "admit  new 
States  into  this  Union/'  but  only  empowered  Congress! 
to  do  so  at  its  discretion  ;  that  therefore  Congress  couldl 
refuse  to  admit  at  its  discretion,  and  that  if  Congress 
could  admit  or  refuse  to  admit  at  its  own  discretion,  itl 
could  admit  upon  conditions,  upon  such  conditions  as  iq 
might  deem  wise  to  impose,  and  could  make  the  contin 
ued  existence  of  the  new  Commonwealth,  as  a  Common 
wealth,  depend  upon  the  continued  observance  by  it  of 
these  conditions. 

They  pointed  to  the  precedents  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
Illinois,  upon  all  of  which  Congress  had  imposed,  as  aeon- 


THE    COMMONWEALTH    OF   MISSOURI  69 

dition  of  their  assumption  of  Commonwealth  powers  and 
government  as  "  States  of  the  Union,"  the  requirement 
that  their  constitutions  should  not  be  repug- 

Tti6     Drccp- 

nant  to  the  "  Ordinance  of  the  Northwest  dents  cited  m 
Territory  of  1787,"  the  sixth  article  of  which  TUafi°madge 
provided  that  there  should  be  neither  slav-  a 
ery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  criminal 
penalty,  in  the  Territory,  from  which  these  Common 
wealths  were  carved  out.  They  contended  that  Con 
gress  thus  prohibited  slavery  in  these  new  Common 
wealths  as  the  condition  of  its  assent  to  their  assumption 
of  the  status  of  Commonwealths  of  the  Union  and  of 
their  continued  existence  with  that  status. 

They  further  pointed  to  the  precedent  of  Louisiana, 
upon  whose  "admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State," 
Congress  imposed  the  conditions  that  the  new  Common 
wealth  should  use  the  English  language  as  its  official 
language,  should  guarantee  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and 
trial  by  jury  in  all  criminal  cases,  and  should  incorpo 
rate  in  its  organic  law  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty. 

They  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the  Constitution  not 
only  permitted  Congress  to  lay  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
upon  every  new  Commonwealth  which  it  Ar  ument 
might l '  admit  into  the  Union,"  but  obligated  fortheamend- 

ment  from  the 

Congress  to  do  so  by  the  constitutional  pro-  duty    of  the 

.    .  ,  .    ,  ,         ..    ,,        ,     ,         »  ,T       TT    -i     i     United    States 

vision  which  makes  it  the  duty  01  the  United  to  guarantee  a 
States  Government  to  guarantee  a  republican  form  V/gov- 
form  of  government  to  every  Commonwealth  every6 c'om" 
of  the  Union.  That  is,  they  claimed  that  m°nweaith. 
slavery  was  incompatible  with  the  republican  form  of 
government,  and  that  Congress  was  therefore  bound  by 
the  Constitution  to  prohibit  slavery  whenever  called 
upon  to  act  in  regard  to  it. 

Having  thus,  from  their  point  of  view,  vindicated  the 


70  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

constitutional  power  and  duty  of  Congress  to  enact  the 
restriction,,  they  claimed  the  personal  liberty  of  every 
human  being  to  be  a  self-evident  principle  of 
from   morals  ethics,  specifically  recognized  in  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  and  therefore  a  prin 
ciple  of  the  political  system  of  the  United  States.    And, 
finally,   they  demonstrated   the  ruinous  policy  of  the 
system  of  slave  labor  in  the  economy  of  the  country. 

There  is  no  question  that  Mr.  Tallmadge  and  his 
friends  had  taken  strong  ground,  and  that  it  would  re 
quire  extraordinary  efforts  to  dislodge  them. 

During  the  first  debate  upon  the  subject,  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  restriction  do  not  seem  to  have  been  so  clear 
Replies  to  in  their  own  minds  in  reference  to  the  prin- 
Seth?re8tric-  ciples  involved  as  they  became  later,  and 
tionists.  their  arguments  do  not  appear  so  convincing. 
Nevertheless,  they  touched  the  point  which  was  the  real 
gist  of  the  contention,  and  dealt  with  it  ably  from  the 
first.  Mr.  Scott,  the  delegate  from  Missouri  Territory, 
and  Mr.  P.  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  made  a  vigorous 
attack  upon  the  claim  of  a  power  in  Congress  to  enact 
the  restriction,  as  a  condition  of  admitting  Missouri, 
"  as  a  State/'  into  the  Union.  They  demonstrated  quite 
clearly  that  the  interpretation  which  the  restrictionists 
placed  upon  the  constitutional  provision  empowering 
Congress  "  to  admit  new  States  into  the  Union  "  would 
enable  Congress  to  establish  inequalities  ad  libitum  be 
tween  the  original  Commonwealths  and  the  new  ones  ; 
would,  in  principle,  enable  Congress  to  make  mere 
provinces  of  the  new  Commonwealths.  They  showed 
conclusively  that  the  real  question  of  the  controversy 
was  not  whether  slavery  should  exist  in  Missouri  or 
not,  but  was  whether  the  Commonwealth  of  Missouri  \{ 
should  be  allowed  to  determine  that  matter  for  her-  I 
self  or  should  have  it  determined  for  her  by  the  Con-  ' 


THE   COMMONWEALTH    OF   MISSOURI  71 

/gress  of  the  United  States.  They  pointed  to  the  facts 
that  the  original  Commonwealths  exercised,  before  the 
formation  of  the  existing  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  exclusive  power  over  this  matter,  each  for  itself; 
that  the  Constitution  had  not  withdrawn  this  power 
from  them,  nor  prohibited  it  to  them  ;  and  that  the  Con 
stitution  declared  all  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  Government,  nor  prohibited  to  the  "  States/'  to  be 
reserved  to  the  "States"  respectively  or  to  the  people. 
They,  therefore,  claimed  that  the  determination  of  the 
question  whether  slavery  should  exist  in  any  Common 
wealth  or  not  was  a  power  reserved  by  the  Constitu 
tion  to  each  Commonwealth  for  itself,  and  that  the 
attempt  to  introduce  a  distinction  between  the  old  Com 
monwealths  and  the  new,  in  regard  to  the  possession  of 
this  power,  was  an  attack  upon  the  first  principle  of  fed 
eral  liberty,  the  principle  of  equality  in  powers  and 
duties  between  the  members  of  the  Union,  an  attack 
which  could  be  justified  legally  only  by  an  express  war 
rant  from  the  Constitution  itself. 

They  disputed  outright  the  constitutionality  of  the 
restrictions  in  regard  to  slavery  which  Congress  had  im 
posed  upon  the  Commonwealths  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
Illinois,  and  held  that  these  Commonwealths  might,  at 
any  time,  so  amend  their  organic  law  as  to  introduce 
slavery  ;  and  they  justified  the  restrictions  imposed 
upon  Louisiana  as  having  express  warrant  from  the 
Constitution. 

They  did  not  deny  the  claims  of  the  restrictionists 
that  slavery  was  ethically  wrong  and  economically  de 
structive,  but  they  contended  that  the  evil  and  the  im 
policy  of  it  would  be  mitigated  by  allowing  the  slaves 
to  be  spread  over  a  larger  extent  of  territory,  reducing 
thus  their  numerical  ratio  to  the  white  population  in 
the  older  Commonwealths,  and  enabling  their  masters 


72  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

to  emigrate  with  them  from  poor  and  exhausted  lands 
to  rich  virgin  soil,  instead  of  being  obliged  to  keep 
them  in  want,  or  sell  them  to  new  and,  therefore,  less 
considerate  masters.  They  argued,  upon  this  point,  that 
all  importation  of  slaves  from  foreign  countries  having 
been  strictly  prohibited,  not  one  slave  could  be  added  to 
the  number  already  existing  by  allowing  their  movement 
into  new  territory,  but  that  their  condition  would  be 
vastly  improved  by  the  increased  products  of  their  labor. 

They  contended,  finally,  that  the  treaty  with  France 
by  which  Louisiana  was  ceded  to  the  United  States 
The  pledge  contained  an  express  provision  pledging  the 
8iave?rao?ert?  United  States  Government  to  protect  all  the 
\n  the  treaty  existing  property  rights  of  the  inhabitants 
of  cession.  Of  the  province,  and  to  admit  these  inhabi 
tants,  so  soon  as  consistent  with  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  the  enjoyment  of 
Commonwealth  powers  on  an  equality  with  those  of  the 
other  Commonwealths  of  the  Union. 

There  is  no  question  that  hostility  to  slavery  colored 
the  views  of  the  restrictionists  in  regard  to  the  consti 
tutional  powers  of  Congress,  and  there  is  also  no  ques 
tion  that  the  anxiety  of  the  slaveholders  to  maintain 
the  security  of  their  property  led  them  to  exaggerate 
all  of  the  defences  of  the  Constitution  in  its  behalf.  It 
must,  however,  be  conceded  that  the  opponents  of  the 
restriction  had,  from  the  outset,  the  better  of  the  ar 
gument  in  the  question  of  constitutional  law,  and  main 
tained  it  throughout  the  debate.  They  did  not  express 
themselves  as  clearly  and  as  exactly  as  the  political  scien 
tist  of  this  age  would  do,  but  they  demonstrated  quite 
convincingly  that  the  questions  of  political  ethics  and 
public  policy  were,  at  the  moment,  entirely  impertinent, 
unless  it  could  be  satisfactorily  established  that  Con 
gress  possessed  the  constitutional  power  to  act  in  the 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  73 

premises.  And  they  showed  that  no  federal  system  of 
government  could  exist,  as  to  the  new  Commonwealths, 
if  Congress  had  the  unlimited  authority  to  distribute 
powers  between  the  general  Government  and  these  Com 
monwealths,  which  the  interpretation  that  the  restric- 
tionists  placed  upon  the  clause  of  the  Constitution 
vesting  Congress  with  the  authority  to  "admit  new 
States  into  this  Union"  involved. 

The  ethical  and  economical  influences  and  consider 
ations  weighed  more  heavily  in  the  minds  of  the  -North 
ern  members  than  the  arguments  from  constitutional 
law,  although  they  asserted  that  the  Constitution  also 
was  upon  their  side. 

They  carried  the  first  part  of  Mr.  Tallmadge's  amend 
ment,  the  prohibition  upon  the  further  introduction  of 
slavery  into  Missouri,  by  a  majority  of  eleven  passage  of 
votes,  and  the  second  part,  the  provision  for  ^end'ment 
the  emancipation  of  all  slaves  born  in  Mis-  o^e^eTtS 
souri,  after  its  admission  as  a  Commonwealth,  tives- 
when  they  should  have  reached  the  age  of  twenty-five 
years,  by  a  majority  of  four  votes. 

The  leading  men  from  the  North  who  voted  against 
the  amendment  were  Parrot,  of  New  Hampshire, 
Holmes,  Mason,  and  Shaw,  of  Massachusetts,  Storrs,  of 
New  York,  Bloomfield,  of  New  Jersey,  Harrison,  of 
Ohio,  and  McLean,  of  Illinois.  They  were  strong  and 
fearless  men  and  no  friends  to  slavery,  but  they  were 
good  constitutional  lawyers,  and  they  felt  that  it  was 
better  to  stand  by  the  Constitution  with  slavery  than  to 
expose  it  to  the  strain  of  exaggerated  interpretations. 

It  was  upon  February  17th,  1819,  that  the  Missouri 
bill  was  finally  passed  by  the   House  and     The   m^ 
sent  to  the  Senate.     It  was  immediately  read  JJJgJ^  in 
twice  in  the  Senate  and  referred  to  the  com 
mittee  in  charge  of  the  bill  for  admitting  Alabama. 


74  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

On  the  22nd,  Mr.  Tait,  of  Georgia,  in  behalf  of  the 
committee,  reported  the  bill  to  the  Senate,  with  the 
recommendation  that  the  Tallmadge  amendment  be 
stricken  out. 

The  annals  of  Congress  state  that  "a  long  and  ani 
mated  debate  "  took  place'  upon  this  recommendation, 
but  the  speeches  are  not  reported.  It  may  be  safely 
concluded,  however,  that  the  argument  against  the 
power  of  Congress  to  pass  the  amendment  prevailed 
very  Decidedly  in  the  minds  of  the  members  of  this 
more  calm  and  judicial  body.  They  voted,  twenty-two 
to  sixteen,  against  the  first  part  of  the  amendment, 
and  thirty-one  to  seven  against  the  second  part.  Such 
men  as  Otis,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Lacock,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  voted  against  the  entire  amendment,  and  Daggett, 
of  Connecticut,  and  even  Rufus  King,  of  New  York,  re 
corded  their  voices  against  the  second  part  of  it. 

The  bill  admitting  Missouri,  without  the  Tallmadge 
amendment,  passed  the  Senate  on  March  2nd,  and  was 
Passage  of  returned  to  the  House  substantially  in  this 
bme  bygithe  form.     The  House   immediately  refused  to 
Senate.  agree  to  the  striking  out  of  the  amendment, 

and  the  Senate  resolved  thereupon  to  adhere  to  its  own  act. 
The  bill  was  thus  lost  for  the  session,  and  the  Missouri 
question  became  the  firebrand  with  which  to  light  up  fa 
natical  and  incendiary  passions,  both  at  the  North  and  at 
the  South,  during  the  following  recess  of  the  Congress. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  session  of  1819-20,  Mr.  Scott 
secured  the  reference  of  the  memorials  concerning  the"" 
The  Mis-  admission  of  Missouri,  presented  at  the  pre- 
fngtheses^on  ceding  session,  to  a  select  committee.  On 
of  1819-20.  t}ie  f0nowing  day,  December  9th,  Mr.  Scott 
reported  a  bill  from  this  committee,  which  authorized  the 
inhabitants  of  that  part  of  Missouri  Territory  already 
described  to  form  a  constitution  and  Commonwealth 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  75 

government.  This  new  bill  was  read  twice  and  referred 
to  the  committee  of  the  Whole  House  for  discussion. 

Warned  by  the  experiences  of  the  preceding  session, 
the   restrictionists   now   took  another   tack.      The     olic 

They  developed   the   plan   of   delaying  the  of  the  restric- 
J  J  tiomsts  to  de 

formation  of   any  more  Commonwealths  in  lay  the  admis- 

the  Missouri  Territory  until  Congress  could  ne°w common^ 
abolish  slavery  in  the  whole  of  it. 

_J)uring  the  debate  of  the  preceding  session  upon  the 
power  of  Congress  to  impose  upon  new  Commonwealths,, 
at  the  time  of  their  creation,  limitations  not  prescribed 
by  the  Constitution,  it  had  been  asserted  by  the  restric 
tionists,  and  not  denied  by  their  opponents,  that  Con 
gress  could  control  the  status  of  the  Territories,  and  keep 
slavery  out  of  them  or  abolish  it  in  them,  at  its  own 
discretion,  during  the  period  before  the  Territories 
should  be  permitted  to  assume  Commonwealth  govern 
ment.  This  seems  to  have  been  considered  by  nearly 
all,  if  not  quite  all,  as  a  fair  interpretation  of  that  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution 'which  vests  in  Congress  the 
power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect 
ing  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  The  friends  of 
slavery  restriction  now  determined  to  take  advantage  of 
this  possibility,  even  at  this  late  day,  and  go  back  to  the 
work  of  clearing  all  the  Territories  west  of  the  Missis 
sippi  of  slavery  by  a  Congressional  Act ;  after  which  the 
formation  of  new  Commonwealths  in  these  Territories 
might  be  delayed  until  they  could  be  settled  by  a  popula 
tion,  which  would,  by  local  law,  maintain  the  free  status. 
Mr.  John  W.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  seems  to  have  formu 
lated  the  plan.  On  the  14th  of  December  he  moved  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  to  consider  the  question  of 
prohibiting  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  into  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States  west  of  the  Mississippi. 
The  proposition  was  voted  and  Mr.  Taylor  himself  was 


76  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

appointed  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  Mr.  Taylor 
then  moved  that  the  consideration  of  the  Missouri  bill  be 
postponed  to  the  first  Monday  of  the  following  February. 
The  friends  of  this  bill  objected  most  strenuously  to 
this  proposition,  and  Mr.  Taylor's  party  compromised 
with  them  by  agreeing  to  shorten  the  period  of  the  pro 
posed  postponement  to  the  second  Monday  of  January. 

Mr.  Taylor's  plan  was  moderate  in  its  character.  He 
did  not  propose  to  emancipate  slaves  already  held  with 
in  these  Territories  or  their  issue  born  there-  Mr  Tay]or>s 
in,  but  simply  to  prevent  any  further  in-  proposition, 
crease  by  immigration  or  importation.  It  is  difficult  to 
see  how  the  slaveholders  themselves  could  have  opposed 
this  proposition  with  much  vigor.  They  had,  nearly  all 
of  them,  professed  to  regard  slavery  as  an  evil,  though 
they  had  suggested  that  the  evil  would  be  mitigated  by 
the  spreading  of  the  slaves  over  more  territory.  It  was 
at  any  rate  to  be  expected  that  those  Representatives 
and  Senators  from  the  North,  who  had  voted  against 
the  Tallmadge  amendment  from  legal  scruples  only, 
would  join  with  the  restrictionists  in  the  support  of 
Mr.  Taylor's  measure,  since  they  all  regarded  slavery 
restriction  as  sound  policy  wherever  the  Constitution 
would  permit  it.  There  certainly  seemed  to  be  a  fair 
chance  for  the  passage  of  a  law  which  would  protect  the 
Territories  from,  at  least,  any  considerable  increase  of  the 
slave  population  which  might  already  be  within  them, 
and  give  white  immigration  a  chance  to  occupy  and  fill 
them,  and  form  free  Commonwealths  in  them.  But  this 
passing  hope  was  dashed  by  a  conjunction  of  events,  the 
elements  of  which  had  already  presented  themselves. 

The  people  resident  in  that  part  of  Massachusetts 
known  as  the  district  of  Maine  had,  through  delegates 
in  convention  assembled,  framed  a  Commonwealth  con 
stitution  and  government.  The  assent  of  Massachusetts 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOUKI  77 

had  been  regularly  given  to  the  division  of  the  old 
Commonwealth.  And  on  December  8th,  1819,  Mr. 
Holmes,  of  Massachusetts,  presented  to  the  The  petition 
House  of  Representatives  a  petition  from  yentioVfn 
the  constitutional  convention  in  the  district  ^Sawon  ^ 
of  Maine,  praying  for  the  admission  of  Maine. 
Maine,  as  a  Commonwealth,  into  the  Union,  on  an 
equality  with  the  Commonwealths  already  existing. 
The  people  of  this  district  had  not  asked  the  permission 
of  Congress  to  form  a  constitution  and  government,  for 
the  reason  afterwards  alleged  that  they  were  already  in 
the  enjoyment  of  this  status  as  a  part  of  Massachusetts. 
The  reason  offered  was  not,  however,  entirely  satisfac 
tory,  and  the  people  of  the  district  were  hardly  able  to 
clear  themselves  from  the  charge  of  an  undue  assump 
tion  of  powers.  The  petition  was,  however,  immediately 
referred  to  a  committee,  with  Mr.  Holmes  as  chair 
man.  On  the  21st,  Mr.  Holmes  reported  a  bill  to  the 
House  providing  for  the  admission  of  the  The  bm  for 
district  as  a  Commonwealth.  On  the  30th,  the  admission 
the  House,  in  committee  of  the  Whole,  ported  and 
took  up  the  bill  for  consideration,  and  in  IZseofVe^ 
the  course  of  the  debate  upon  it  Mr.  Clay  reeentatives- 
suggested  the  connection  of  the  Missouri  bill  with  the 
Maine  bill.  Mr.  Clay  did  not,  however,  put  his  suggestion 
into  the  form  of  a  motion,  and  therefore  the  House 
came  to  110  vote  upon  the  point  at  this  juncture.  The 
/bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine  was  passed  on  January 
[3rd,  1820,  without  any  connection  with  the  Missouri  bill, 
and  without  any  restrictions  or  limitations  upon  the 
powers  of  the  new  Commonwealth  beyond  what  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  placed  upon  those  of  the 
original  Commonwealths.  Mr.  Clay's  suggestion  was 
not,  however,  lost  upon  the  Senate,  as  will  be  seen 
later. 


78  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

Meanwhile  Mr.  Taylor's  committee  had  not  been  able 

to  come  to  any  agreement.     On  December  28th,  1819, 

before  the  final  passage  of  the   Maine  bill, 

The  failure 

of  Mr.  Taylor's  Mr.  Taylor  stated  to  the  House  that  the 
venting1"  s?av-  committee  had  instructed  him  to  ask  for 
ery  extension.  iia  discharge.  The  House  agreed  to  his 
request,  and  he  immediately  moved  that  a  new  com 
mittee  be  appointed,  and  "instructed  to  report  a  bill" 
prohibiting  the  further  admission  of  slaves  into  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States  west  of  the  Missis 
sippi  Eiver.  This  motion  evidently  appeared  to  the 
House  to  be  a  prejudgment  of  the  whole  question,  since 
it  postponed  the  consideration  of  it  indefinitely. 

The  Missouri  bill  was,  however,  also  allowed  to  rest 

until  January  24th,  1820,  and  when,  upon  that  day,  the 

Speaker  announced  the  bill  as  the  first  order, 

The  Missouri    ,,.-.',  n  ,      ,    , 

bin  again  be-  Mr.  Taylor  moved  for  another  week  s  delay, 

fore  the  House          -in  >•  ^      i    •>  i  i 

ofRepresenta-  and  the  motion  was  lost  by  only  a  single 
vote.  On  the  next  day  the  House,  in  com 
mittee  of  the  Whole,  proceeded  to  consider  the  bill. 
On  the  26th,  Mr.  Storrs,  of  New  York,  undertook 
to  connect  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  region 
north  of  the  thirty-eighth  parallel  of  latitude  and  west 
of  the  Mississippi  River  and  the  proposed  Missouri 
boundary  with  the  grant  of  the  permission  to  form  a 
Commonwealth  in  Missouri.  The  opponents  of  slavery 
extension  did  not,  however,  regard  this  as  sufficient 
compensation  for  their  support  of  the  bill,  and  Mr. 
Storrs's  motion  was  lost. 

Whereupon  Mr.   Taylor  moved   that   the   people   of 

Missouri  should  be  required  to  ordain  and  establish  in 

their  constitution  the  prohibition  of  slavery 

Mr.  Taylor's  L  J 

amendment  to  and  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  pun- 

thebill.  .  ,  ,    .  .J         .      ,,  j  /^ 

ishment  for  crime,  in  the  proposed  Common 
wealth.     Conceding,  as  the  result  of  the  discussions,  and 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF    MISSOURI  79 

the  action  of  the  Congress  during  the  preceding  session, 
that  Congress  had  no  constitutional  authority  to  impose 
restrictions  upon  new  Commonwealths,  as  the  condition 
of  their  admission  into  the  Union,  which  the  Constitution 
did  not  impose  upon  the  original  Commonwealths,  the 
new  question  involved  in  Mr.  Taylor's  motion,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  constitutional  law,  now  was,  whether 
Congress  could  require  of  a  new  Commonwealth,  as  the 
condition  of  its  admission  to  the  Union,  that  it  should 
impose  any  limitations  upon  itself  which  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  did  not  impose  upon  the  orig 
inal  Commonwealths.  Could  Congress  effect  indirectly 
what  it  could  not  do  directly? 

Mr.  Taylor's  argument  rested  substantially  upon  the 
proposition,  upheld  by  the  restrictionists  during  the 
preceding  session,  that  if  Congress  could  ad-  Mr.  Taylor's 
mit,  it  could  refuse  to  admit,  and  if  it  could  S|p?rtSf  h£ 
admit  or  refuse  to  admit,  it  could  admit  upon  amendment- 
conditions.  He,  however,  advanced  other  propositions 
and  suggestions.  He  held  that  the  admission  of  a  new 
Commonwealth  into  the  Union  was  a  procedure  in  the 
nature  of  a  contract  between  the  United  States  Govern 
ment  and  the  people  of  the  new  Commonwealth,  and, 
therefore,  admitted  of  any  terms  accepted  by  both 
parties.  He  further  held  that  the  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution,  which  impliedly  vested  in  Congress  the  power 
to  prohibit,  after  1808,  the  importation  or  migration  of 
slaves,  covered  the  case,  in  that  the  word  migration 
meant  passage  from  one  Commonwealth  into  another, 
in  distinction  from  importation,  which  meant  the  bring 
ing  of  slaves  into  the  United  States  from  foreign  coun 
tries.  And  he  suggested  that  territory  acquired  by  the 
United  States  subsequent  to  the  formation  of  the  Con 
stitution  need  not  be  treated  with  the  same  considera 
tion,  as  to  the  rights  of  its  inhabitants,  as  that  which 


80  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

belonged  to  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  forma 
tion  of  the  Constitution. 

Of  course  the  members  from  the  South  resisted  Mr. 

Taylor's  conclusions.     But  they  were  not  alone  in  their 

Replies  to  P08^011-     Some  of  the  strongest  opponents 

Mr.   Taylor's  of   slavery  from   the  North   stood  up  with 

reasoning. 

them  in  resisting  what  they  considered  to  be 
an  attack  upon  the  principle  of  federal  government. 
Mr.  Holmes,  of  Massachusetts,  was  again  chief  among 
them,  and  it  is  to  his  argument  that  one  must  look 
for  the  most  scientific  and  unprejudiced  view  of  the 
subject. 

After  demonstrating  most  convincingly  that  the 
clauses  of  the  Constitution  which  vested  in  Congress 
Mr.Hoiras?'s  the  power  to  prohibit  the  migration  of  per- 
"gli£t$£  sons  into  the  United  States  after  1808  and 
amendment.  ^  regulate  commerce  between  the  Common 
wealths  could  not  be  interpreted  as  giving  Congress 
the  power  to  prevent  the  transportation  of  slaves  from 
one  Commonwealth  into  another,  Mr.  Holmes  attacked 
the  fundamental  proposition  upon  which  Mr.  Taylor 
relied,  the  proposition  that  if  Congress  could  admit,  it 
could  refuse  to  admit,  and  if  it  could  admit  or  refuse  to 
admit  at  pleasure,  it  could  admit  upon  conditions.  Mr. 
Holmes  contended  that  the  power  to  determine  whether 
slavery  should  exist  or  not  in  any  community  was  pos 
sessed  by  each  Colony  before  the  Revolution,  and  by  each 
"  State  "  after  the  Revolution,  and  that  the  Constitution! 
of  1787  had  not  deprived  the  "States"  of  it,  but  had 
recognized  it  as  belonging  to  each  of  them  exclusively  ; 
that  new  "States"  admitted  by  Congress  into  the 
Union  must  have  all  the  rights,  and  be  subject  to  all  the 
duties,  which  the  original  "  States  "  possessed,  on  the  one 
side,  and  were  obligated  to  discharge,  on  the  other  ;  that 
Congress  could  not  increase  the  powers  of  the  general 


THE  COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  81 

Government  within  the  new  Commonwealths  by  selling 
the  Territories  a  license  to  the  Commonwealth  status,  and 
taking  the  pay  for  it  in  powers  to  be  exercised  by  the 
general  Government  in  the  new  Commonwealths,  which 
that  Government  could  not,  by  the  Constitution,  exer 
cise  within  the  original  Commonwealths;  and  that  if 
Congress  assumed  to  exercise  such  power,  and  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Territory  seeking  the  Commonwealth  status 
should  even  accept  the  imposed  condition,  the  new 
Commonwealth  had  the  right  and  the  power  to  free  it 
self  from  the  condition,  and  the  Congress  was  powerless 
to  prevent  it. 

Mr.   McLane,  of   Delaware,  a  Commonwealth   whose 
legislature  had  instructed  the  representatives  from  the 
Commonwealth  in  Congress  to  support  all     Mr     Mc 
measures  for  preventing  the  spread  of  slavery  Lane's   argu- 

.,       m        .  /•     .  .,    /         TT  \  MA*        ment    against 

in  the  Territories  of  the  Union  west  of  the  the  a  mend- 
Mississippi,  presented  the  question  with  even 
greater  clearness  and  conciseness.  He  simply  analyzed 
the  words  of  the  Constitution  which  make  up  the  clause 
conferring  power  on  Congress  "to  admit  new  States 
into  this  Union."  He  said  that  the  power  to  admit  was 
not  the  power  to  create  ;  that  the  very  use  of  the  word 
presupposed  that  the  power  to  create  the  "  State "  re 
sided  elsewhere  than  in  Congress  ;  that  Congress  must 
admit  a  "  State,"  not  a  Territory  or  a  province  or  any 
thing  but  a  "State;"  that  a  "State/'  in  the  system  of 
federal  government  of  the  United  States,  was  an  or 
ganization  whose  powers  and  duties  had  been  determined 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  itself,  and 
could  not  be  altered  by  Congressional  definitions  and 
limitations  ;  that  Congress  must  admit  the  ' ( State  " 
into  this  Union,  not  into  some  other  union  ;  and  that 
this  Union  was  a  system  of  federal  government,  in 
which  the  relations  between  the  general  Government 
6 


82  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

and  the  "  States  "had  been  fixed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  could  not  be  altered  by  a 
mere  Congressional  act.  This  was  strong  reasoning, 
and  it  had  a  powerful  effect  upon  the  minds  of  all  who 
heard  it  and  of  all  who  read  it. 

Meanwhile  events  were  occurring  in  the  Senate  which 
were  to  exercise  a  controlling  influence  over  the  fate  of  the 
bill  in  the  House.  On  December  29th,  1819,  a  memorial 
from  the  Territorial  legislature  of  Missouri,  praying  for 
the  admission  of  that  part  of  the  Territory  already  de 
scribed  in  the  memorial  to  the  House,  had  been  pre 
sented  in  the  Senate,  and  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 

The  inde-  Hiittee.  On  January  3rd,  1820,  the  House 
iSrtnbi/of  bil1  admitting  Maine  was  sent  into  the  Senate. 
the  senate.  ]\fr>  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  immedi 
ately  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  move  the  connec 
tion  of  the  two  subjects  in  the  same  bill,  and  on  the 
same  terms.  As  we  have  seen,  Mr.  Clay  had  already 
made  this  suggestion  in  the  House,  but  had  not  for 
mally  proposed  it. 

The  House  bill  admitting  Maine  was  immediately  re 
ferred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  which  committee  al- 

Theconnec-  ready  had  the  Missouri  bill  in  its  charge, 
*  and  on  January  6th,  Mr.  Smith,  of  South 
Carolina,  the  chairman  of  this  committee, 
muting111  Mit  reP°rted  from  it  to  the  Senate  the  House 
souri.  "bi]}  admitting  Maine,  with  an  amendment 

authorizing  the  people  of  Missouri,  within  the  general 
geographical  boundaries  already  described,  to  form  a  con 
stitution  and  Commonwealth  government.  The  amend 
ment  contained  no  restrictions  or  conditions  with  regard 
to  slavery. 

On  January  13th,  the  day  fixed  for  considering  the 
report  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Roberts,  of  Pennsylvania, 
moved  the  recommitment  of  the  Maine  bill  to  the  Judi- 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  83 

ciary  Committee,  with  the  instruction  that  the  bill 
should  be  divested  of  the  amendment  in  regard  to  Mis 
souri.  The  vote  upon  this  motion  would,  therefore, 
reveal  the  attitude  of  the  Senate  upon  the  question  of 
tacking  the  two  subjects  together.  Such  men  as  Mr. 
Roberts,  Mr.  Mellen,  Mr.  Burrill,  and  Mr.  Otis  argued 
that  they  should  be  disconnected,  on  the  ground  of  the 
discordance  of  the  two  provisions.  The  people  of  Maine, 
they  said,  had  already  formed  their  constitution  and 
government,  and  were  simply  asking  for  admission, 
while  the  Missouri  bill  was  a  measure  for  enabling  the 
people  of  a  part  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a 
constitution  and  government,  under  which  they  might 
be  admitted  later,  provided  that  constitution  should 
prove  satisfactory  to  Congress. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  men  as  Mr.  Barbour,  Mr. 
Smith,  and  Mr.  Macon  contended  that  the  two  subjects 
were  entirely  germane,  and  that  any  contrary  appear 
ance  was  caused  by  the  unwarranted  action  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Maine  in  proceeding  so  far  as  they  had  done  with 
out  asking  the  consent  of  Congress,  for  which  wrongful 
procedure  presumptuous  Maine  should  not  be  rewarded 
and  respectful  Missouri  punished. 

On  the  14th,  the  vote  was  taken  upon  the  motion 
to  recommit,  and  it  was  lost  by  a  majority  of  seven 
votes  in  forty-three.  A  number  of  the  Sen-  The  refugal 
ators  from  the  Northern  Commonwealths  of  the  senate 

„  to   disconnect 

voted  with  the   Southerners  in   refusing  to  thetwomeas- 
separate  the  two  subjects. 

The  question  then  came  upon  the  contents  of  the  bill 
as  reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Mr.  Eoberts 
immediately  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  a  provision  pro 
hibiting  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  into  Mis 
souri.  The  arguments  upon  this  motion  were  sub 
stantially  a  repetition  of  what  had  already  been  said 


84  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

upon  the  subject  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives.  The 
amendment  was  voted  down,  on  February  1st,  by  a  large 
majority.  -f- 

On  the  3rd,  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  offered  an 
amendment,  which  was  destined  to  play  a  very  impor- 
Mr.  Thomas's  tant  part  in  the  further  development  of  the 
S^oimfmea?-  subject.  It  was  the  proposition  to  exclude 
ure-  slavery  from  the  Louisiana  Territory  above 

thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes,  except  within  the 
limits  of  the  proposed  Commonwealth  of  Missouri.  The 
Senate  was  not  yet  prepared,  however,  to  consider  this, 
the  question  before  it,  at  the  moment,  being  the  ques 
tion  of  procedure,  the  question  whether  the  two  sub 
jects  should  be  united  in  one  bill.  The  Senate  had  only 
voted  not  to  recommit  the  bill  to  the  Judiciary  Commit 
tee  with  instructions,  and  it  was  thought  necessary  to 
take  a  formal  vote  upon  the  question  of  the  connection 
of  the  two  subjects  as  proposed  by  the  committee  before 
considering  any  further  amendments  to  it.  Mr.  Thom 
as,  therefore,  withdrew  his  motion  for  the  moment. 

It  was  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  when  ap 
parently  there  was  nothing  before  the  Senate  but  the 
question  of  the  union  of  the  two  subjects, 
'  great  that  Mr.  Pinkney  of  Maryland  made  his 


a  gainst  the  brilliant   and  unanswerable  argument  upon 


the  question  of  the  powers  of  Congress  in 
tne  premises.  It  diifered  logically  very  little 
!me  os  el?  1b°t  fr°m  Mr-  McLane's  powerful  analysis  of  the 
the  constitu-  subject  in  the  House,  but  it  was  elaborated 

1  1  o  n   on  the  • 

original  Com-  and    embellished    as    only    Mr.    Pinkney  s 

monwealths.       ,  •  •   i      t  •    j  •  111         •  i          mi  "•    i 

beautiful  diction  could  do  it.  The  gist 
of  the  reasoning  was,  however,  contained  in  a  few 
sentences  which  ran  as  follows  :  "  What,  then,  is  the 
professed  result  ?  To  admit  a  State  into  this  Union. 
What  is  this  Union  ?  A  confederation  of  States,  equal 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  85 

in  sovereignty,,  capable  of  everything  which  the  Con 
stitution  does  not  forbid,  or  authorize  Congress  to  for 
bid.  It  is  an  equal  union  between  parties  equally 
sovereign.  They  were  sovereign,  independent  of  the 
Union.  The  object  of  the  Union  was  common  pro 
jection  for  the  exercise  of  already  existing  sovereignty. 
(The  parties  gave  up  a  portion  of  that  sovereignty  to 
insure  the  remainder/  As  far  as  they  gave  it  up  by 
the  common  compact,  they  have  ceased  to  be  sovereign. 
The  Union  provides  the  means  for  securing  tke  residue  ; 
and  it  is  into  that  Union  that  a  new  State  is  to  come. 
By  acceding  to  it,  the  new  State  is  placed  on  the  same 
footing  with  the  original  States.  It  accedes  for  the 
same  purpose,  that  is,  protection  for  its  unsurrendered 
sovereignty.  If  it  comes  in  shorn  of  its  beams,  crip 
pled  and  disparaged  beyond  the  original  States,  it  is  not 
into  the  original  Union  that  it  comes.  For  it  is  a 
different  sort  of  Union.  The  first  was  a  Union  in 
ter  pares.  This  is  a  Union  inter  disparates,  between 
giants  and  a  dwarf,  between  power  and  feebleness, 
between  full  proportioned  sovereignties  and  a  misera 
ble  image  of  power — a  thing  which  that  very  Union 
has  shrunk  and  shrivelled  from  its  just  size  instead  of 
preserving  it  in  its  true  dimensions.  It  is  into  this 
Union,  that  is  the  Union  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
that  you  are  to  admit  or  refuse  to  admit.  You  can  ad 
mit  into  no  other.  You  cannot  make  the  Union,  as  to 
the  new  States,  what  it  is  not  as  to  the  old  ;  for  then  it 
is  not  this  Union  that  you  open  for  the  entrance  of  a 
new  party.  If  you  make  it  enter  into  a  new  and  addi 
tional  compact  is  it  any  longer  the  same  Union  ?  .  .  . 
But  it  is  a  State  which  you  are  to  admit.  What  is  a 
State  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution  ?  It  is  not  a 
State  in  general,  but  a  State  as  you  find  it  in  the  Con 
stitution.  .  .  .  Ask  the  Constitution.  It  shows  you 


86  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

what  it  means  by  a  State  by  reference  to  the  parties  to 
it.  It  must  be  such  a  State  as  Massachusetts,  Virginia, 
and  the  other  members  of  the  American  Confederacy — 
a  State  with  full  sovereignty  except  as  the  Constitution 
restricts  it.  The  whole  amount  of  the  argument  on 
the  other  side  is,  that  you  may  refuse  to  admit  a  new 
State,  and  that,  therefore,  if  you  admit,  you  may  pre 
scribe  the  terms.  The  answer  to  that  argument  is, 
that  even  if  you  can  refuse,  you  can  prescribe  no  terms 
which  are  inconsistent  with  the  act  you  are  to  do. 
You  can  prescribe  no  conditions  which,  if  carried  into 
effect,  would  make  the  new  State  less  a  sovereign  State 
than,  under  the  Union  as  it  stands,  it  would  be.  You 
can  prescribe  no  terms  which  will  make  the  compact  of 
Union  between  it  and  the  original  States  essentially 
different  from  that  compact  among  the  original  States. 
You  may  admit  or  refuse  to  admit,  but  if  you  admit, 
you  must  admit  a  State  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitu 
tion — a  State  with  all  such  sovereignty  as  belongs  to  the 
original  parties  ;  and  it  must  be  into  this  Union  that 
you  are  to  admit  it,  not  into  a  Union  of  your  own  dic 
tating,  formed  out  of  the  existing  Union  by  qualifica 
tions  and  new  compacts,  altering  its  character  and  ef 
fect,  and  making  it  fall  short  of  its  protecting  energy 
in  reference  to  the  new  State,  whilst  it  requires  an 
energy  of  another  sort — the  energy  of  restraint  and 
destruction/" 

This  is  the  old-fashioned  political  and  rhetorical  way 
of  saying  what  the  modern  publicist  would  state  in  such 
language  as  this  :  In  a  federal  system  of  government,  all 
powers  are  distributed  by  the  state,  the  nation,  the  ulti 
mate  sovereignty,  through  the  Constitution,  between  the 
central  Government  and  the  Commonwealths.  The  as 
sumption  by  the  central  Government  of  the  authority  to 
redistribute  these  powers  in  a  different  manner,  in  any 


THE   COMMONWEALTH    OF   MISSOURI  87 

given  case,  is  an  assumption  of  sovereignty,  the  Consti 
tution-making  power,  and  the  possession  of  any  such 
power  by  the  central  Government  makes  a  federal  system 
of  government  impossible.  It  makes  the  Commonwealths 
only  creatures  and  agencies  of  the  central  Government. 
It  changes  the  whole  system  from  federal  government  to 
centralized  government.  In  the  federal  system  of  gov 
ernment  as  it  existed,  in  1820,  in  the  United  States,  the 
determination  of  the  question  whether  slavery  should 
exist  or  not  in  any  Commonwealth  was  reserved  through 
the  Constitution  to  each  Commonwealth  for  itself,  since 
this  power  was  neither  vested  in  the  central  Government 
nor  denied  to  the  Commonwealths.  If  Congress  could 
assume  this  power,  it  could  assume  any  and  every  other 
power  and  right  which  the  Commonwealths  possessed. 
Such  authority  in  the  central  Government  would  destroy 
in  principle  the  federal  system,  at  once,  and  make  the 
government  a  centralized  form. 

There  was  nobody  in  the  Senate  who  did,  or  could, 
answer  this  argument.  The  amendments  proposed  after 
this  to  the  bill  as  reported  from  the  Judiciary 

,    .       ,  i    .    ,.  Pinkney's 

committee  contained  no  further  restrictions  argument  suc- 
upon  the  Commonwealth  powers  of  Missouri, 
but  had  reference  only  to  what  remained  of  the  Louis 
iana  territory  north  and  west  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
proposed  Commonwealth. 

The  formal  vote  connecting  the  two  subjects  of  Maine 
and  Missouri  was  taken  in  the  Senate  on  February 
16th,  and  after  this  was  resolved  upon,  Mr.  The  adop- 
Thomas  immediately  renewed  his  motion  to  T°h  0  ^  a  ¥** 
amend  the  bill  by  the  addition  of  a  clause  SJ^fiSiK 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Louisiana  territory  ^  the  pae- 
above  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes,  Mai-^fn"JJyg 
outside  of  the  boundaries  of  the  proposed  amended. 
Commonwealth  of  Missouri.  After  an  attempt,  on  the 


88  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

one  side,  to  carry  this  line  up  to  the  fortieth  parallel, 
and  a  counter  attempt  on  the  other  to  make  the  prohibi 
tion  extend  to  all  the  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi, 
except  that  already  under  Commonwealth,  government, 
or  in  process  of  being  put  under  Commonwealth  govern 
ment  by  the  existing  bill  —  the  result  of  which  would 
have  been  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  just  organ 
ized  Territory  of  Arkansas  —  Mr.  Thomas's  amendment 
was  adopted  as  the  fair  compromise.  The  bill,  as  thus 
amended,  passed  the  Senate  on  February  18th,  1820,  and 
was  sent  immediately  to  the  House  of  Kepresentatives. 

The  form  of  the  bill  was  now  the  House  bill  in  regard 

to  Maine,  with  the  Missouri  bill  and  the  Thomas  propo 

sition  attached  to  it  as  amendments.     The 

of  Eepresent-  House   voted   to   disagree   to   these   amend- 

to  agree  to  the  ments,  and  sent  the  bill,  stripped  of  them, 

combination. 


mediately  to  insist  upon  its  amendments,  and  the  House 
answered  with  a  vote  insisting  upon  its  position.  There 
upon,  the  Senate  requested  a  conference  with  the  House 
upon  the  subject,  and  appointed  Mr.  Pinkney,  Mr. 
The  confer-  Barbour,  and  Mr.  Thomas  as  its  representa- 
and  tives.  The  House  acceded  to  the  request 

and  appointed  Mr.  Holmes,  Mr.  Taylor,  Mr. 

Lowndes,  Mr.  Parker,  and  Mr.  Kinsey  as  its 
representatives.  These  gentlemen  met  and  agreed  with 
out  much  difficulty  to  the  following  points  :  That  the 
Senate  'should  withdraw  its  amendments  to  the  House 
bill  for  the  admission  of  Maine  ;  that  both  the  Senate 
and  the  House  should  pass  the  Missouri  bill,  without 
the  condition  in  reference  to  the  restriction  of  slavery 
in  the  proposed  Commonwealth  ;  and  that  both  the 
Senate  and  the  House  should  add  a  provision  to  the 
Missouri  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  remainder  of  the 
Louisiana  territory  north  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 


THE   COMMONWEALTH    OF   MISSOURI  89 

minutes.  That  is,  the  House  should  gain  its  point  of 
order  in  the  separation  of  the  two  subjects  ;,  the  Senate 
should  gain  its  point  of  constitutional  law  in  defending 
the  new  Commonwealth  against  restrictions  not  imposed 
by  the  Constitution  upon  the  original  Commonwealths ; 
and  the  two  should  compromise  upon  a  fair  division  of 
the  remaining  parts  of  the  Louisiana  territory  between 
the  interests  of  the  North  and  those  of  the  South.  The 
Senate  accepted  the  recommendations  of  the  committee. 
without  much  difficulty,  and  voted  the  measures  con 
tained  in  them.  The  House  also  accepted  the  recom 
mendations  and  voted  the  necessary  provisions  upon  its 
part. 

When  the  measures  were  placed  before  President 
Monroe  for  his  approval,  he  called  a  meeting  of  the 
Cabinet  to  consider  the  subject.  There  was  president 
no  difficulty  except  upon  a  single  point,  the  JJovSTof  tie 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  remainder  of  Compromise, 
the  Louisiana  territory  above  thirty-six  degrees  and 
thirty  minutes  north  latitude.  Was  this  to  be  taken  as 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Commonwealths  which  might 
be  formed  upon  this  territory  in  the  future,  or  did  the 
Congress  only  intend  to  lay  this  restriction  upon  this 
territory  merely  for  the  period  during  which  it  might 
continue  subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  Government,  the  period  of  Territorial  organiza 
tion  ?  If  the  former,  the  Missouri  question  would  have 
to  be  fought  over  again  whenever  a  new  Commonwealth 
should  be  formed  in  this  territory.  The  Cabinet  in 
terpreted  the  prohibition  as  applying  only  during  the 
period  before  the  Commonwealth  organization  should  be 
established,  and  upon  the  basis  of  this  interpretation 
advised  the  President  that  the  measure  was  constitu 
tional.  The  President  signed  the  Maine  bill  on  the  3rd 
of  March  and  the  Missouri  bill  on  the  6th  (1820). 


90  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

So  far  as  the  questions  of  constitutional  and  parliamen 
tary  law  were  concerned,,  the  settlement  reached  was  in 
Review  of    accordance   with   right   principles.     It    was 
voivedh? the    right  that  the  two  subjects,  which  the  Senate 
contest.  united  in  one  bill,  should  be  separated.     The 

only  justification  for  this  act  of  the  Senate  was  the 
manifest  determination  on  the  part  of  the  House  to  im 
pose  an  unconstitutional  restriction  as  the  condition 
upon  which  the  people  of  Missouri  should  be  allowed  to 
assume  the  status  and  the  powers  of  a  Commonwealth  of 
the  Union.  It  was  the  only  weapon  left  to  the  more 
conservative  Senate,  by  which  to  defend  the  Constitu 
tion  against  the  rashness  of  the  more  radical  House.  It 
need  astonish  no  impartial  student  of  our  history  that 
the  Senate  used  it.  No  such  momentous  question  was 
involved  in  this  point  of  parliamentary  procedure  as 
there  was  in  the  exaggerated  interpretation  of  the  pow 
ers  of  Congress  by  the  House.  The  Senate  showed  its 
willingness  to  yield  its  position  upon  this  point  so  soon 
as  the  House  would  return  to  sound  constitutional  prin 
ciple  in  the  Missouri  question.  It  was  fortunate  for  the 
development  of  the  parliamentary  practice  of  Congress 
that  the  House  so  changed  its  position  in  reference  to 
the  greater  question  of  constitutional  law  as  to  enable 
the  Senate  to  return  to  the  true  parliamentary  prin 
ciple  of  the  separation  of  subjects  which  differ  in  es 
sence  or  in  circumstances  in  the  slightest  degree. 
While,  therefore,  the  Senate  should  not  be  too  strongly 
criticised  for  using  its  power  over  its  own  rules  of  pro 
cedure,  as  a  means  of  retaliation,  it  is  a  matter  of 
great  satisfaction  that  expedients  were  at  last  found  for 
maintaining  right  principle  and  sound  parliamentary 
custom  in  the  case.  And  it  was  surely  right  that  the  at 
tempt  to  make  Congress  the  distributor  of  powers  be 
tween  the  general  Government  and  the  Commonwealths 


THE    COMMONWEALTH    OF    MISSOURI  91 


was  abandoned.  The  power  whichjnade  the  Constitu 
tion  can  alone  set  up  the  metes  and  bounds  between  the 
realm  of  authority  of  the  general  Government  and  that 
of  the  Commonwealths.  This  is  the  indispensable  con 
dition  of  federal  government.  If  the  general  Govern 
ment  possesses  such  power,  the  system  is  centralized  in 
theory,  and  may  become  so  in  fact  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
general  Government.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Com 
monwealths  possess  such  power,  the  system  is  the  loosest 
form  of  confederation,  an  international  league. 

It  is  true  that  the  Constitution  may  authorize  the 
general  Government  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  Common 
wealths  in  regard  to  certain  specified  points  and  the  fed 
eral  system  be  still  preserved,  but  a  general  authority  in 
the  general  Government  to  do  so,  such  as  was  claimed 
by  the  restrictionists  from  the  vague  provision  vesting 
in  Congress  the  power  to  "admit  new  States  into  this 
Union,"  amounts  to  nothing  less  than  a  claim  of  sov 
ereignty  by  Congress  over  the  new  Commonwealths. 
Such  was  not  the  system  which  those  who  framed  and 
ratified  the  Constitution  intended  to  establish.  Such  is 
not  the  system  which  comports  with  the  vast  territorial 
extent  and  the  climatic  differences  of  the  United  States, 
and  with  the  ethnical  variety  of  the  population  of  the 
country. 

It  is  also  true  that  those  who  resisted  the  restriction 
upon  Missouri  used  terms  and  propositions,  in  reference 
to  the  genesis  of  the  Union  and  the  relation  of  the  gen 
eral  Government  to  the  Commonwealths,  which  will 
hardly  bear  the  test  of  correct  history  and  exact  polit 
ical  science,  but  they  had  the  true  principle  in  respect 
to  the  point  at  issue,  when  they  held  that  '  '  the  State," 
in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution,  is  defined  in  the  Con 
stitution  ;  that  its  powers  are  the  residue  after  what  the 
Constitution  vests  exclusively  in  the  general  Govern- 


92  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

raent  and  denies  to  the  "States*'  shall  have  been  sub 
tracted  from  sovereignty ;  and  that  Congress  cannot 
vary  these  relations  under  an  interpretation  of  a  general 
provision.  They  conceded  that  Congress  might,  as  the 
general  principle,  admit  or  not  admit,  as  it  might  judge 
proper,  with  all  that  this  involved  in  reference  to 
geographical  boundaries  and  ripeness  of  the  population 
for  self-government,  but  they  held  that  the  thing  ad 
mitted  was  created  by  the  Constitution,  through  the 
people  inhabiting  the  district  to  be  formed  into  a  Com 
monwealth,  and  not  by  Congress.  And  they  repudiated 
the  idea  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  any 
part  of  the  constitutional  law  of  the  country,  or  that 
Congress  can  define  the  republican  form  of  government 
which  the  United  States  is  obligated  by  the  Constitution 
to  guarantee  to  every  Commonwealth,  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  concretely  expressed  in  the  original  Common 
wealths. 

They  held  this  ground  under  enormous  strain  and 
pressure  brought  from  without.  Cross-roads  assemblies, 
town  and  city  meetings,  and  Commonwealth  legislatures 
poured  petitions  and  memorials  in  upon  them  in  behalf 
of  slavery  restriction.  The  excitement,  throughout  the 
Northeast  especially,  was  intense.  They  had  to  fight 
their  battle  under  an  ignoble  issue.  But  it  will  not 
be  denied  by  any  impartial  constitutional  lawyer  that 
they  were,  for  this  time,  the  upholders  of  the  Consti 
tution  against  an  unwarranted  attempt  to  stretch  Con 
gressional  power. 

Finally,  the  compromise  provision,  drawing  the  line  of 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  through  the  Louisi 
ana  territory,  and  securing  all  north  of  it,  which  was  by 
far  the  greater  part,  against  the  introduction  of  slavery 
during  the  period  that  it  might  remain  under  the  exclu 
sive  jurisdiction  of  the  general  Government,  was  tanta- 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  93 

mount  to  a  surrender,  forever,  of  this  vast  domain  to 
immigration  from  the  North  almost  exclusively,  and  to 
the  creation  therein  of  new  Commonwealths  into  which 
slaveholders  could  not  take  their  slave  property.  Many 
American  historians  treat  the  express  exclusion- of  slavery 
north  of  this  line  as  no  concession  to  the  North,  but 
as  a  mask  under  which  the  real  concession,  the  conces 
sion  to  the  South,  was  hidden.  This  they  claim  to  have 
been  the  implied  concession  to  hold  slaves  south  of  that 
line.  But  slavery  was  legal  by  custom  in  the  whole  of  the 
province  of  Louisiana,  when  the  United  States  received 
it  from  France.  That  is,  a  master  might  have  taken 
slaves  into  any  part  of  it,  into  which  he  might  have 
gone  himself,  and  would  not  thereby  have  violated  any 
law,  and  the  United  States  Government  had  not,  down  to 
1820,  changed  this  state  of  things  by  any  act  of  its  own. 

The  compromise  upon  the  line  of  thirtv-six  degrees 
and  thirty  mi  mi  tea  was,  therefore,  a  very  decided  limi 
tation  upon  the  existing  rights  of  slave-masters.  And 
even  if  slavery  had  not  already  penetrated  into  this 
region,  it  can  hardly  be  claimed  that  the  balance  of 
advantage  created  by  the  compromise  provision  lay  with 
the  South,  except  upon  the  principle  that  the  South 
ought  not  to  have  had  anything,  and  the  North  ought 
to  have  had  everything.  Ethically,  perhaps,  this  is  the 
correct  principle  from  which  to  judge  the  question,  but 
politically  and  legally  it  was  not,  at  that  moment. 

The  Union  consisted  of  Commonwealths,  in  all  of 
which  slavery  existed  at  the  time  of  and  during  the  War 
for  Independence,  in  almost  all  of  which  it  existed  when 
the  Constitution  of  1787  was  framed  and  adopted,  and 
in  about  half  of  which  it  existed,  as  the  most  important 
institution,  at  the  period  of  the  Missouri  controversy. 
Further,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the  Constitution 
contained  recognition  and  guarantees  of  slave  property. 


94  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

The  vague  phrases  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
even  if  intended  to  touch  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave  within  the  country,  were  not  law.  It  is  true  that 
slavery  was  regarded  both  in  the  North  and  in  the  South 
as  an  evil,  but  men  differed  in  opinion  as  to  whether 
confining  the  slaves  to  a  particular  section  was  a  better 
means  for  its  mitigation  than  spreading  them  over  a 
larger  area,  and  reducing  thus  their  number  relative  to 
the  white  population  in  any  particular  section. 

Surrounded  in  thought  with  the  ideas  and  conditions 
of  1820,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  balance  of  advan 
tage  contained  in  the  compromise  provision  of  the  Mis 
souri  bill  did  not  lie  with  the  North.  Compromise  or 
no  compromise  about  the  remainder  of  the  Louisiana 
territory,  Missouri  was  bound  to  be  admitted  without 
restriction  as  to  slavery.  The  customary  law  of  the 
region  seeking  to  become  a  Commonwealth  permitted 
slaveholding.  The  population  was  sufficient  to  warrant 
the  assumption  of  Commonwealth  powers.  The  Consti 
tution  did  not  authorize  Congress  to  impose  the  slavery 
restriction,  and  the  people  of  the  region  had  protested 
against  it.  The  admission  of  Missouri  was,  therefore, 
no  legitimate  element  in  the  compromise.  Neither  was 
the  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  to  separate 
Maine  from  Missouri  any  proper  element  in  the  com 
promise.  The  restriction  placed  by  the  House  on  Mis 
souri  rested  on  a  false  interpretation  of  constitutional 
law,  and  the  connection  of  the  two  subjects  in  the  same 
bill  rested  on  a  false  interpretation  of  parliamentary 
law.  In  principle  both  had  to  be  abandoned.  The 
compromise  was  in  reality  only  about  the  remainder  of 
the  Louisiana  territory  after  the  admission  of  Missouri, 
in  no  part  of  which  had  slavery,  to  that  moment,  been 
prohibited.  How  much  of  it  should  continue  open  to 
the  further  introduction  of  slavery  by  the  immigration  of 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  95 

masters  with  their  slaves,  and  how  mnch  should  be  given 
over  to  practically  exclusive  immigration  from  the  North 
—these  were  the  only  proper  terms  of  the  compromise. 
What  the  South  finally  obtained  out  of  it  was  one  Com 
monwealth,  while  the  vast  region  from  which  slavery  was 
excluded  has  produced  eight  or  nine  Commonwealths. 
In  the  light  of  these  considerations  it  certainly  appears 
that  the  cause  of  free  labor  won  a  substantial  triumph 
in  the  Missouri  compromise,  and  that,  in  place  of  that 
shameful  surrender  of  freedom  to  slavery,  so  emphasized 
by  certain  historians,  a  mighty  step  forward  in  the 
progress  of  liberty  was  taken. 

It  was  confidently  hoped  and  believed  that  the  com 
promise  had  solved  the  slavery  problem,  in  so  far  as 
Congress  could  solve  it.  The  whole  country  breathed 
more  easily  and  the  thoughts  of  men  were  turned  to 
other  subjects. 

But  the  peace  proved  to  be  only  an  armistice.  In 
less  than  twelve  months  the  battle  was  raging  The  revival 
again  with  more  than  its  former  fury.  of  theMieeou- 

The  Missouri  convention,  which  drew  up 
and  voted,  in  the  middle  of  the  year  1820,  the  organic 
law  for  the  new  Commonwealth,  inserted  a  paragraph 
therein  which  made  it  the  duty  of  the  legislature,  pro 
posed  to  be  established  by  that  law,  to  enact  measures 
for  preventing  mulattoes  and  free  negroes  from  immi 
grating  into  and  settling  within  the  Commonwealth. 
—On  November  14th,  1820,  this  instrument  was  pre 
sented  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  on  the 
16th   to  the  House  of   Kepresentatives,  for 

.,  ,      ,.  The  Missouri 

the  purpose  01  moving  these  bodies  to  pass  constitution  in 
an  act  admitting  Missouri  into  the  Union  as 
a  Commonwealth.     The  instrument  was  immediately  re 
ferred  by  each  House  to  a  committee  ;  and  on  the  23rd, 
Mr.  Lowndes,  the  chairman  of  the  House  Committee, 


96  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

reported  a  bill  for  effecting  this  result,  and,  on  the 
29th,  Mr.  Smith  reported  a  bill  of  like  tenor  to  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  Lowndes's  bill  was  prefaced  by  a  statement  of 
views,  which  presented  the  questions  of  constitutional 
interpretation  to  which  the  provision  referred  to  in  the 
Missouri  instrument  gave  rise.  He  alluded  to  the  pos 
sible  repugnance  of  the  provision  to  that  clause  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  guarantees  to 
the  citizens  of  each  Commonwealth  all  the 

Mr.    Lown-          .  .  ..... 

des's  bill  for  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  every 

the  admission    *•    ,  .. , ,       .  .  ,     , 

of  Missouri  other  Commonwealth  ;  but  said  that  the  pro- 
Btrtunent  in-  vision  in  the  Missouri  instrument  could  be 
interpreted  to  mean  only  such  mulattoes  and 
free  negroes  as  were  not  citizens  in  any  Commonwealth. 
And  he  held  that,  whether  this  be  the  true  interpreta 
tion  or  not,  the  judiciary  of  the  United  States,  and  not 
the  Congress,  should  determine  the  question  of  repug 
nance  between  the  Missouri  instrument  and  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  He  finally  took  the 
ground  that  Missouri  was  now  already  a  Commonwealth 
by  virtue  of  the  Act  of  Congress  giving  her  people  per 
mission  to  form  Commonwealth  government,  and  by  vir 
tue  of  the  act  of  her  people  in  forming  a  Commonwealth 
constitution,  and  he  declared  that  the  refusal  or  fail 
ure  of  Congress,  at  this  time,  to  pass  a  formal  act  of  ad 
mission  could  not  reduce  her  again  to  the  Territorial 
status. 

Mr.  Sergeant,  the  spokesman  of  the  opposition  to  Mr. 
Lowndes's   report,    met   these    propositions    with    the 
serious  op-   counter  -  propositions,  that  a  Territory  be- 
tne8  Lowndes  comes  a  Commonwealth  of  the  Union  only 
bilL  by  a  Congressional  Act  admitting  it  to  that 

status  ;  that  no  other  kind  of  a  Commonwealth  than  a 
Commonwealth  in  the  Union  is  known  to  the  political 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF    MISSOURI  97 

system  of  the  United  States  ;  that  all  the  acts  done 
by  Congress  and  by  the  people  resident  within  a 
Territory  before  the  Congressional  Act  of  admission  are 
nothing  more  than  preliminaries,  and  that  a  Terri 
tory  remains  a  Territory  until  the  passage  of  this  lat 
ter  act ;  that  the  provision  in  the  Missouri  instrument 
in  regard  to  the  exclusion  of  mulattoes  and  free  ne 
groes  was  repugnant  to  that  clause  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  which  guarantees  to  the  citizens  of 
any  Commonwealth  the  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizens  in  every  other  Commonwealth  of  the  Union 
into  which  they  may  go  ;  and  that  Congress,  not  the 
Judiciary,  is  the  body  which  should  determine  whether 
such  repugnance  exists,  and,  if  so,  correct  it. 

There  is  no  doubt  that,  from  the  point  of  view  of  a 
correct  political  logic,  the  opponents  of  Mr.  Lowndes's 
propositions  in  regard  to  the  making  of  a  Common 
wealth  of  the  Union  stood  upon  the  firmer  ground, 
despite  the  fact  that  the  precedents  did  not  sustain 
fully  their  claims.  As  a  fact,  Congress  had  been  guilty 
of  such  irregularities  in  the  admission  of  some  of  the 
Commonwealths  as  to  give  much  support  to  the  notion 
that  there  could  be  a  Commonwealth  in  the  political 
system  of  the  United  States  before  its  formal  admission 
into  the  Union.  But  the  argument  is  unanswerable, 
that  a  Commonwealth  not  in  the  Union  is  a  foreign 
state ;  that  in  order  that  a  Territory  shall  attain  this 
latter  position  and  status  its  constitutional  right  to  se 
cede  from  the  United  States  must  be  recognized,  which 
is  absurd ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  Congressional  Act 
of  admission  is  what  makes  a  Territory  of  the  Union 
into  a  Commonwealth  of  the  Union,  the  only  kind  of  a 
Commonwealth  known  to  the  political  system  of  the 
United  States. 

They  also  stood  upon  the  firmer  ground  in  holding 
7 


98  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  scrutinize  closely  the 
measures  proposed  for  enactment  by  it  from  the  point 
of  view  of  their  constitutionality,  and  to  pass  no  act,  of 
the  constitutionality  of  which  it  is  not  reasonably  con 
vinced,  under  the  pretext  that  the  Judiciary  is  the 
proper  body  to  correct  the  usurpation.  The  members 
of  Congress  take  the  same  oath  to  uphold  the  Constitu 
tion  as  the  judges  do.  The  revisory  powers  of  the  Ju 
diciary  over  the  acts  of  Congress  were  not  given  in  order 
to  excuse  the  Congress  from  exercising  its  preliminary 
judgment  upon  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts. 
They  were  given  simply  to  correct  errors  in  judgment. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  a  citizen  of  one  Common 
wealth  immigrated  into  and  settled  in  another,  it  was 
The  protec-  a  °iliestion  whether  he  did  not  lose  the  right 
ri°hts  of  citf  *°  treated  as  a  citizen  in  the  latter  Com- 
of  one  monwealth,  in  so  far  as  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  as  it  was  in  1820,  was  con- 
cerned,  and  become  subject  to  the  laws  of 
united  states.  the  ^^  Commonwealth  as  to  his  status.  If 
he  were  only  passing  through,  or  sojourning  temporarily 
in,  the  latter  Commonwealth,  it  was  clear  that  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  protected  him  as  a  citizen 
of  another  Commonwealth,  but  when  he  changed  his  resi 
dence  and  citizenship  to  the  latter  Commonwealth,  the 
question  became  much  more  complicated.  It  was  now 
whether  the  laws  of  one  Commonwealth  were,  by  virtue  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  valid  in  another 
Commonwealth  for  the  protection  of  persons  against  the 
laws  of  the  latter  Commonwealth,  who  had  become  citi 
zens  and  residents  of  the  latter  Commonwealth. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  immediate 
question  involved  in  the  provision  of  the  Missouri  in 
strument  was  whether  a  Commonwealth  could  prohibit 
the  citizens  of  other  Commonwealths  from  immigrating 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI  99 

into,  and  gaining  residence  and  citizenship  within,  it 
self.  How  it  might  treat  such  persons  after  these 
things  had  been  accomplished  was  a  subsequent  matter. 
But  even  limiting  the  question  to  this  point,  it  was  cer 
tainly  a  startling  thing  to  the  Southerners  to  be  told 
that,  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
a  negro  citizen  of  Massachusetts  had  the  right  to  im 
migrate  into,  and  become  a  citizen  of,  South  Carolina, 
when  the  laws  of  South  Carolina  did  not  admit  negroes 
to  citizenship. 

On  December  13th  (1820),  after  a  long,  earnest,  and, 
at  times,  acrimonious  debate,  the  Lowndes 
measure  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  was  th 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  ninety-three  to  seventy-  House!n  the 
nine. 

The  bill  presented  by  Mr.  Smith  in  the  Senate  was 
taken  up  for  consideration  on  December  4th.  The  argu 
ments  pro  and  con  were  about  the  same  as  passage  of 
those  offered  in  the  House,  but  the  bitter-  ^fSS^SS 
ness  of  feeling  which  seemed  to  animate  the  b? the  senate- 
members  of  the  opposition  to  the  measure  in  the  House 
was  not  manifested  by  those  adverse  to  it  in  the  Senate. 
Nevertheless,  there  was  a  majority  in  the  Senate  against 
passing  a  simple  measure  for  admission  without  any 
limitations.  They  finally  voted  the  bill,  with  the  proviso 
attached  :  "  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  give  the  assent  of  Congress  to  any  pro 
vision  in  the  constitution  of  Missouri,  if  any  such  there 
be,  which  contravenes  that  clause  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  which  declares  that  '  the  citizens  of 
each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  im 
munities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States/ ' 

The  House  tabled  this  bill  on  the  same  day  that  it  re 
jected  the  measure  offered  by  its  own  committee.  But 
what  now  was  the  status  of  Missouri  ?  Her  people  had 


100  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

elected  a  governor  and  members  of  the  legislature  under 

the  organic  law  formed  in  July,  and  it  was  considered 

doubtful  whether  there  still  existed  any  Ter- 

wii  tabled  by  ritorial  officials  exercising  governmental  pow- 

the  House.  TT 

ers.  The  House,  however,  would  not  even 
inquire  into  this  fact.  They  said  the  question  before 
them  was  one  of  law  and  not  of  fact  at  all. 

After   some  futile  attempts  made  by  Mr.  Eustis,  of 

Massachusetts,   for  the  admission   of  Missouri  upon  a 

Mr.  ciay  future  day,   provided  the   obnoxious  clause 

ond  Missouri  should  be  expunged  from  her  organic  law  be- 

Compromise.      fore  that  day^  Mf    Qlay  came  f orwar(J  an(J  ag_ 

sumed  the  management  of  the  question. 

On  January  29th,  1821,  he  asked  the  House  to  go  into 
committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  Senate  bill  ad 
mitting  Missouri.  This  proposition  was  naturally  agreed 
to,  and,  after  several  unsuccessful  attempts  made  by 
others  at  an  immediate  amendment  of  the  Senate  bill  in 
the  committee  of  the  Whole  House,  Mr.  Clay  moved 
the  reference  of  the  bill  to  a  select  committee  of  thirteen 
persons.  This  motion  was  passed,  and  the  committee 
was  chosen,  with  Mr.  Clay  as  its  chairman. 

On  February  10th,  1821,  Mr.  Clay  reported  the  recom 
mendations  of  the  committee.  They  were  expressed  in 
the  proposition:  That  Missouri  should  be  ' '  admitted  into 
this  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States, 
in  all  respects  whatever,  upon  the  fundamental  condition 
that  the  said  State  shall  never  pass  any  law  preventing 
any  description  of  persons  from  coming  to  and  settling  in 
the  said  State,  who  may  now  be  or  hereafter  become  citi 
zens  of  any  of  the  States  of  this  Union ;  and  provided 
also,  that  the  legislature  of  the  said  State,  by  a  solemn 
public  act,  shall  declare  the  assent  of  the  said  State  to 
the  said  fundamental  condition,  and  shall  transmit  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  on  or  before  the  fourth 


THE    COMMONWEALTH    OF   MISSOURI          101 

Monday  of  November  next,  an  authentic  copy  of  the  said 
act  :  upon  the  reception  whereof,  the  President,  by 
proclamation,  shall  announce  the  fact  :  whereupon,  and 
without  any  further  proceedings  on  the  part  of  Congress, 
the  admission  of  the  said  State  shall  be  considered  as 
complete  :  and  provided  further,  that  nothing  herein 
contained  shall  be  construed  to  take  from  the  said  State 
of  Missouri,  when  admitted  into  this  Union,  the  ex 
ercise  of  any  right  or  power,  which  can  now  be  consti 
tutionally  exercised  by  any  of  the  original  States." 

Mr.  Tomlinson,  of  the  committee,  took  the  floor 
against  the  report,  and  showed  so  conclusively  that  the 
legislature  of  a  Commonwealth  could  not 

,.,,-,  ,  ,,    ,,  The  failure 

bind  the  makers  01  the  organic  law  01  the  of  Mr.  days 
Commonwealth,  and  that,  therefore,  any  ob 
ligation  which  the  legislature  of  Missouri  might  assume 
toward  Congress  might  prove  nugatory,  that  the  Senate 
bill,  with  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Clay's  commit 
tee,  was  voted  down. 

Mr.  Clay  waited  ten  days  after  this  in  order  to  let  the 
feelings  of  the  members  become  mollified,  and  on  Feb 
ruary  22nd,  one  of  the  most  significant  days 
in  American  history,  made  his  final  attempt  stcomd  at- 

TT  n     ,-,      ,     tempt    to   se- 

to  secure  a  compromise.  He  moved  that  cure  a  com- 
members  to  a  conference  committee  be  ap-  pro: 
pointed  by  the  House.  The  motion  was  carried,  and  on 
the  next  day  the  members  of  the  House  contingent  of 
the  committee,  consisting  of  twenty-three  persons,  under 
the  lead  of  Mr.  Clay,  were  appointed.  The  Senate  met 
the  advance  promptly  and  appointed  seven  members  to 
represent  it. 

On  the  26th,  Mr.  Clay  reported  the  results  of  the 
conference,  in  the  form  of  a  resolution  of  the  follow 
ing  tenor  :  "  Eesolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  as- 


102  THE   MIDDLE  PEEIOD 

sembled,  that  Missouri  shall  be  admitted  into  this  Union 
on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  re 
spects  whatever,  upon  the  fundamental  con- 
-  dition,  that  the  fourth  clause  of  the  twenty- 
sixth  section  of  the  third  article  of  the  con 
stitution  submitted  on  the  part  of  said  State  to  Congress 
shall  never  be  construed  to  authorize  the  passage  of  any 
law,  and  that  no  law  shall  be  passed  in  conformity 
thereto,  by  which  any  citizen  of  either  of  the  States  of 
this  Union  shall  be  excluded  from  the  enjoyment  of  any 
of  the  privileges  and  immunities  to  which  such  citizen 
is  entitled  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  : 
Provided  that  the  legislature  of  the  said  State,  by  a 
solemn  public  act,  shall  declare  the  assent  of  the  said 
State  to  the  said  fundamental  condition,  and  shall  trans 
mit  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  or  before 
the  fourth  Monday  in  November  next,  an  authentic  copy 
of  the  said  act ;  upon  the  receipt  whereof  the  President, 
by  proclamation,  shall  announce  the  fact ;  whereupon, 
and  without  any  further  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Con 
gress,  the  admission  of  the  said  State  into  this  Union 
shall  be  considered  as  complete." 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  recommendation  contained  the 
same  objectionable  feature  as  did  that  of  the  committee 
Passage  of  of  Thirteen  of  the  House,  that  is,  the  propo- 
MteBonriCom?  sition  to  rely  upon  the  Missouri  legislature 
promise  Act.  to  enter  into  an  obligation  to  Congress,  which 
should  bind  all  future  legislatures  and  also  the  constit 
uent  power  of  the  Commonwealth.  It  was,  therefore,  at 
tacked  upon  the  same  ground,  but  the  supporters  urged 
so  strongly  that  Congress  should  put  a  reasonable  faith 
in  the  honor  of  Missouri  to  keep  the  pledge  made  by  her 
first  legislature,  that  the  resolution  was  finally  adopted 
by  the  House,  by  a  very  small  majority,  on  the  same  day 
that  it  was  reported.  It  was  immediately  sent  to  the 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI          103 

Senate  for  concurrence,,  and,  after  a  brief  debate,  was 
voted  by  that  body  on  the  28th,  by  a  large  majority. 

The  great  struggle  was  at  last  over,  and  it  was  sin 
cerely  hoped  that  the  "  era  of  good  feeling,"  so  sudden 
ly  interrupted  by  it,  had  been  restored.  Apparently  it 
was  so,  but  while  the  decision  finally  reached  saved  the 
country  from  one  great  danger,  it  sowed  the  seeds  of 
another.  A  brief  review  of  the  effects  of  that  decision 
upon  the  constitutional  law,  political  science,  and  social 
conditions  of  the  Republic  will  make  this  apparent. 

In  the  first  place,  the  decision  involved  the  constitu 
tional  and  political  principle  that,  in  the  federal  sys 
tem  of  government  generally,  and  in  the  The  general 
system  of  the  United  States  in  particular, 
the  powers  of  government  are,  and  must  be, 
distributed  by  the  sovereignty  behind,  and  tion- 
supreme  over,  both  the  general  Government  and  the 
Commonwealths,  and  not  by  either  of  the  two  govern 
ments,  unless  expressly  empowered  to  do  so,  in  specific 
cases,  by  the  sovereignty  through  the  Constitution. 
This  is  undoubtedly  a  sound  principle,  both  of  political 
science  and  constitutional  law,  but  it  taught  the  South 
erners  that  protection  of  their  property  in  slaves  would 
depend  upon  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution.  It- 
caused  their  leaders  to  desert  the  broad  national  ground 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  which  they 
had  occupied  since  1812,  and  to  seek  more  and  more  to 
limit  and  restrict  the  powers  of  Congress,  in  which  the 
majority  of  the  members  of  one  House,  at  least,  must 
always  come  from  the  North,  and  in  the  other  House 
of  which  no  more  than  an  exact  balance  could  be  main 
tained. 

It  introduced,  therefore,  the  principle  which  led  nec 
essarily  to  a  division  of  the  all-comprehending  Repub 
lican  party  into  two  branches,  the  one  branch  holding 


104  THE    MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

to  the  latitudinarian  and  national  views  of  the  party 
from  1812  to  1819,  and  the  other  to  the  earlier  creed  of 
1798  to  1812.  The  former  finally  coalesced  with  the 
remnants  of  the  Federal  party  and  formed  the  National 
Republican  or  Whig  party,  while  the  latter  called  itself 
the  Democratic  party. 

It  is  necessary  to  keep  clearly  in  mind  the  cause  of 
the  division  of  the  Republican  party  into  its  two 
branches  in  order  to  understand  the  principles  which 
distinguished  them,  for  their  names  are  somewhat  mis 
leading.  For  example,  it  is  quite  difficult  to  understand, 
upon  general  principles,  why  the  slaveholders  of  the 
South  should  be  called  Democrats,  while  many  of  the 
little  farmers  and  the  artisans  of  the  North  should  be 
called  Whigs.  The  element  of  democracy  which  was  to 
be  found  in  the  political  creed  of  the  Southern  masters 
was  strict  construction  of  governmental  powers,  the  least 
possible  interference  of  government  in  private  affairs, 
and  the  largest  possible  individual  autonomy— in  a  word, 
individual  immunity  against  government.  The  master 
could  take  care  of  himself,  if  left  free  to  rule  his  slaves. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Missouri  decision  involved 
the  principle  of  constitutional  law  that  the  Congress 
has  general  powers  of  legislation  in  the  Territories,  and 
may  do  anything  therein  not  forbidden  by  the  Constitu 
tion.  This  is  also  a  sound  and  valuable  principle.  It 
was  this  which  won  the  great  Northwest  for  free  labor, 
so  far  as  government  could  affect  the  question,  and 
gave  the  Union  the  strength  to  meet  the  crisis  of  1861- 
65.  The  Southerners  eventually  saw  what  they  had  lost 
in  conceding  this  interpretation  of  the  powers  of  Con 
gress,  and,  as  will  be  seen  further  on,  sought  to  repudiate 
it ;  but  their  long  acquiescence  in  it  had  allowed  it  to 
gain  the  power  of  constitutional  precedent,  too  strong  to 
be  successfully  overcome. 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI          105 

In  the  third  place,  the  Missouri  decision  involved  the 
principle  that  there  was,  before  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  was  adopted,  an  United  States  citizenship  which 
carried  with  it  immunities  and  privileges  which  no 
Commonwealth  could  lawfully  deny  or  abridge,  and 
which  the  United  States  Government  was  bound  to  pro 
tect  and  defend  against  any  Commonwealth  seeking  to 
impair  them.  It  demonstrated  the  difficulties  which 
could  arise  by  allowing  a  Commonwealth  to  confer 
United  States  citizenship,  and  thereby  bind  the  United 
States  Government  to  sustain  the  acts  of  one  Common 
wealth  within  the  jurisdiction  of  another  Commonwealth, 
whose  laws  might  be  directly  contradictory  to  those  oi 
the  first  Commonwealth  upon  the  subject  in  point.  It 
did  not  undertake  to  solve  the  difficulty.  It  only  held 
firmly  to  the  principle,  while  it  made  many  of  the  best 
minds  aware  that  this  most  national  provision  of  the 
Constitution  would,  sooner  or  later,  certainly  require  an 
advance  all  along  the  line  in  the  further  development  of 
the  governmental  system  of  the  country. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  Missouri  decision  taught  the 
inhabitants  of  the  older  Commonwealths  that  the  West 
could  not  be  held  in  a  provincial  or  quasi-provincial 
status  ;  that  it  must  be  carved  up  and  formed  into  Com 
monwealths  having  the  same  powers  and  privileges  as 
the  older  Commonwealths ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  po 
litical  centre  of  the  United  States  was  bound  to  move 
westward,  and  the  East  was  ultimately  to  come,  in  large 
degree,  under  the  influence  of  the  West.  It  was  this 
which  has  helped  powerfully  to  carry  the  brain  and  the 
money  of  the  East  to  the  West,  and  is  making  in  the 
West  a  new,  and,  in  some  respects,  more  enterprising, 
East. 

Finally,  the  Missouri  decision  taught  the  South  that 
there  was  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


106  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

States  which  probably  made  it  possible  for  the  Northern 
Commonwealths  to  force,  through  the  power  of  the  gen 
eral  Government,  a  class  of  persons  upon  the  Southern 
Commonwealths,,  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  full  rights  of 
citizenship,  whom  these  Commonwealths  did  not  and 
would  not  recognize  as  citizens  in  any  respect ;  and  that 
there  was  a  growing  disposition  at  the  North  to  make  an 
advance  against  slavery  at  every  possible  point.  The  effect 
of  this  conviction  was  most  baleful  both  upon  the  spirit 
of  the  masters  and  the  status  of  the  slaves.  It  created 
that  resentment  in  the  minds  of  the  Southerners  against 
interference  in  their  domestic  affairs,  which  closed  their 
ears  to  all  arguments  against  slavery,  and  it  moved  them 
to  the  enactment  of  measures  in  their  several  Common 
wealths  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  slaves  under 
stricter  discipline  and  in  denser  ignorance.  It  increased 
vastly,  if  it  did  not  introduce,  that  utter  misunderstand 
ing  of  each  other's  feelings  and  motives  between  the 
people  of  the  two  sections,  which  made  it  possible  for 
the  people  of  the  North  to  believe,  finally,  that  the  story 
of  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  was  the  sober  truth,  and  the 
general  rule  of  conduct  of  master  toward  slave  in  the 
Sou  th,  and  for  the  people  of  the  South  to  believe  that 
jealousy  of  riches  and  comfort  was  the  sole  spirit  which 
prompted  the  attacks  of  the  North  upon  slavery — a  mis 
understanding,  therefore,  which  proved  irreconcilable 
so  long  as  the  subject  of  it  remained. 

The  Missouri  decision  made  thus  both  for  good  and 
for  evil — for  good,  surely,  in  that  it  produced  clearer 
ideas  upon  the  character  of  federal  government,  and 
preserved  the  East  from  an  illiberal  political  policy 
toward  the  West ;  and  in  that  it  secured  the  great 
Northwest  for  free  labor ; — for  evil,  possibly,  in  that  it 
estranged  the  two  sections  of  the  Union,  and  put  a  stop 
to  any  movement  in  the  South  for  the  gradual  and  peace- 


THE   COMMONWEALTH   OF   MISSOURI          107 

able  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  or  for  the  substantial 
amelioration  of  their  condition.  It  is  not  very  likely, 
however,  that  any  such  movement  would  have  proved 
successful,  and  it  is,  therefore,  probable  that  what  ap 
pears  on  the  outside  to  have  been  an  evil  was  in  reality  a 
good,  in  that  it  drove  the  disease  in  the  body  politic  of  the 
South  onward  toward  the  crisis,  which  must  be  passed 
in  order  that  the  permanent  cure  might  be  effected. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  PARTICULARISTIC   REACTION 

Slavery  and  the  Industrial  Policies  of  the  Union — President  Mon 
roe  and  Protection  after  1820 — The  Committee  on  Manufac 
tures—The  Tariff  Bill  of  1823— The  General  Character  of  the 
Bill,  and  its  Failure  to  Pass — President  Monroe's  Message  of 
1823,  and  Protection— The  Tariff  Bill  of  1824— Mr.  Clay's 
Argument  in  its  Support — Mr.  Clay's  Argument  Answered — 
The  First  Expression  of  the  Doctrine  that  Protection  and 
Slavery  were  Hostile  Interests — The  Bill  Amended  and  Passed 
— The  Tariff  of  1824  not  yet  Considered  Sectional  Legislation 
—South  Carolina  and  the  Tariff  of  1824— The  Historical  De 
velopment  of  the  Doctrine  of  Internal  Improvements- -Madi 
son's  Ideas  upon  Internal  Improvements — The  Bill  of  1822  for 
Internal  Improvements — Passage  of  the  Bill,  and  Analysis  of 
the  Vote  upon  it— The  Bill  in  the  Interests  of  the  West- 
President  Monroe's  Veto,  and  Communication  of  May  4th,  1822 
— President  Monroe's  Argument,  and  the  Vote  upon  the  Veto 
— Congressional  Act  of  1824  for  Distinguishing  National  from 
Local  Improvements  —  Foreign  Relations  During  Monroe's 
Second  Term — Russia  and  the  Northwest  Coast  of  America  — 
The  Holy  Alliance — The  Congress  at  Verona — Mr.  Adams's 
Declaration  to  Baron  Tuyl — Mr.  Canning's  Proposal  to  Mr. 
Rush — Mr.  Canning's  Declaration  to  Prince  Polignac — The 
"  Monroe  Doctrine  " — The  Meaning  of  the  Monroe  Propositions 
in  1824 — Failure  to  Commit  Congress  to  these  Propositions — 
The  Particularistic  Reaction  Scarcely  Discoverable  before  1824. 

IT  was  hoped  and  believed  that  the  settlement  of  the 
Missouri  question  and  the  compromise  in  reference  to 
the  remainder  of  the  Louisiana  cession  had  put  the 
problem  of  negro  slavery  out  of  the  realm  of  national 
politics.  In  fact,  however,  the  struggle  over  these 
questions  had  introduced  it  into  that  realm,  and  had 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION"      109 

first  opened  the  eyes  of  the  slaveholders  to  the  bearings 
of  the  slavery  interest  upon  all  the  questions  of  consti 
tutional  law  and  public  policy.  From  the  slavery  and 
point  of  view  of  that  interest  their  attitude  ^HcSs^S 
toward  all  these  questions  was  more  and  more  union, 
determined  as  they  came  to  understand  more  and  more 
clearly  the  relation  of  these  questions  to  that  interest. 
While,  therefore,,  the  settlement  and  the  compromise 
served  to  withdraw  the  question  of  slavery  from  the 
direct  and  immediate  issue,  they,  at  the  same  time,  left 
it  the  secret  influence  over  views  and  actions  in  many, 
if  not  most,  directions. 

At  the  next  session,  beginning  in  December  of  1821, 
propositions  were  introduced  into  the  Senate  to  limit 
and  decrease  the  admiralty  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  courts,  to  make  the  Senate  itself  a  court  of  appeal 
from  the  regular  Judiciary  in  cases  where  a  " State" 
should  be  a  party,  and  to  limit  to  two  hundred  the  num 
ber  of  members  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 

The  purpose  of  all  these  projects  is  apparent.  In 
deed,  their  proposers  said  openly  and  frankly  that  their 
purpose  was  to  lessen  and  limit  the  powers  of  the  gen 
eral  Government  in  the  interests  of  "  States'-rights." 

It  was  natural,  however,  that  the  new  spirit  of  par 
ticularism  should  attack  the  policies  of  the  Government 
rather  than  the  structure  of  the  political  system,  or, 
more  correctly,  should  undertake  to  control  these  poli 
cies  before  it  sought  to  transform  that  system. 

We  have  seen  with  what  unanimity  and  national  en 
thusiasm  the  protection  of  home  industries  was  re 
garded,  in  the  half  decade  between  1815  and  1820,  as  a 
measure  indispensable  to  the  attainment  and  mainten 
ance  of  industrial  independence.  Not  even  Calhoun 
then  understood  the  relation  between  this  policy  and 
the  interests  of  slavery.  The  Presidents,  Madison  and 


110  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Monroe,  were  utterly  oblivious  to  it.  Even  after  the 
Missouri  struggle,  Mr.  Monroe  continued  to  recommend 
President  the  protection  of  manufactures  for  the  at- 
Jf?ort°ectaion  tainment  of  industrial  independence  as  the 
after  1820.  truQ  national  policy.  His  annual  messages 
of  1821  and  of  1822  contain  this  recommendation.  He 
either  did  not  comprehend  the  relation  of  the  slavery 
interests  to  the  protective  system  or  disregarded  it. 
it  could  hardly  have  been  the  latter,  for,  although  he 
was  no  radical  supporter  of  slavery,  he  was  a  slave 
holder  and  a  very  conservative  man. 

The  House  of  Eepresentatives,  the  body  which  had 
upheld  even  radically  national  views  of  the  character 
of  the  political  system  during  the  Missouri 
mittee°on  struggle,  very  naturally  responded  to  Mr. 
ree'  Monroe's  recommendation,  and  referred  it  to 
its  Committee  on  Manufactures  for  consideration  and 
support.  Heretofore  this  subject  had  been  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  the  regular  revenue- 
raising  committee.  Its  reference  now  to  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures  is  good  evidence  that  the  House  of 
Representatives  regarded  a  protective  tariff  as  a  sub 
ject  which  Congress  might  deal  with  independently, 
and  without  any  necessary  connection  with  the  subject 
of  the  revenue.  Such  a  view  is  radically  national.  It 
rests  upon  the  doctrine  that  Congress  may  do  anything 
in  the  regulation  of  foreign  trade  and  commerce  which, 
in  its  own  opinion,  is  conducive  to  the  general  welfare, 
regardless  of  the  pecuniary  needs  of  the  Government. 

On  January  9th,  1823,  Mr.  Tod,  of  Pennsylvania,  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  a 

The  Tariff  tariff  bill.  ^  proposed  to  nearly  double  the 
BUI  of  1823.  existing  duty  upon  iron,  quadruple  that  upon 
coarse  woollens,  and  to  increase  the  custom-house  valu 
ation  of  dyed  cotton  goods  by  some  forty  per  centum. 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC   REACTION      111 

Moreover,  the  bill  made  no  provision  for  the  future 
reduction  of  these  duties.  It  therefore  indicated  that 
protection  was  to  be  the  permanent  policy,  protection 
so  high  as  to  amount  to  the  prohibition  of  the  importa 
tion  of  coarse  cottons  and  woollens  and  bar  iron.  In 
fact,  Mr.  Tod  conceded  that  the  prohibition  of  the  im 
portation  of  coarse  woollens  was  intended.  He  said 
that  the  tariff  of  1816  on  coarse  cotton  goods  had  given 
a  monopoly  of  the  domestic  markets  for  such  goods  to 
the  home  manufacturers,  while  the  price  of  the  goods 
had  been  reduced  through  home  competition  by  one- 
half,  and  that  his  committee  desired  to  bring  about 
the  same  result  in  regard  to  the  manufacture  of  coarse 
woollens. 

Mr.  Tod  was  not  able  to  get  a  vote  upon  his  bill  at 
this  session  of  the  Congress.     Three  significant  facts, 
however,  were  elicited  in  the  course  of  the 
debate   upon  it,  facts  which   indicated   the  characfernerof 
trend  of  political  history.      These  facts  were  its  failure  to 


that  the  bill  was  a  Pennsylvania  measure, 
that  the  South  would  oppose  it,  and  that  Massachusetts 
and  New  York  City  would  unite  with  the  South  in  this 
opposition.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  Massachusetts  man,  Mr. 
Gorham,  who  denounced  the  bill  as  sectional  legislation, 
and  advised  the  South  to  resist  it  to  the  utmost.  Cot 
ton  and  commerce,  and  that  meant  slavery  and  com 
merce,  were  beginning  to  discover  their  affinity. 

President  Monroe,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have 
shared  this  view  of  the  subject.  In  his  mes-  President 
sage  of  December  2nd,  1823,  he  again  recom-  Monroe's  Mes- 

1        1  TTi-  1  .•  «   J.1  SaS6      Of       1823 

mended  additional  protection  to  "  those  ar-  andprotec- 
ticles  which  we  are  prepared  to  manufacture, 
or  which  are  more  immediately  connected  with  the  de 
fence  and  independence  of  the  country/' 

Thus  encouraged  by  the  President,  the  House  of  Rep- 


112  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

resentatives  again  referred  the  question  of  increasing 
the  tariff  to  Mr.  Tod's  committee. 

On  January  9th,  1824,  Mr.  Tod  brought  in  his  new 

bill.     It  was  a  more  moderate  proposition  than  that  of 

The  Tariff  *ne  Preceding   session  ;  still  it  provided  for 

BUI  of  1824.      a  substantial  increase  of  the  duties  on  wool 

lens  and  iron. 

Mr.  Tod  assumed  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill  to 
be  a  settled  question,  and  supported'the  policy  of  it  by 
arguments  from  the  necessity  of  attaining  industrial  in 
dependence  in  the  manufacture  of  the  necessaries  of 
life,  from  the  necessity  of  creating  new  and  more  re 
munerative  employments  for  labor,  and  from  the  policy 
of  developing  better  home  markets  for  agricultural  prod 
ucts.  He  predicted  that  an  ultimate  reduction  of  the 
prices  of  manufactured  goods  would  be  'the  result  of  the 
increased  home  competition  produced  by  higher  duties. 
He  did  not,  however,  make  out  any  very  satisfactory 
prospects  for  commerce.  This  branch  of  the  national 
pursuits  was  to  make  the  sacrifice. 

Mr.  Clay  made  the  great  argument  in  defence  of  the 

measure.     He  elaborated  the  patriotic  reason  in  every 

direction.      He   pointed   out   the   utter   de- 

argumentayin  peiidence  of  the  country  upon  foreign  mar- 


its  support.      ketg^  both  f  Qr  the  gale  of  itg  agricuiturai  pro(}_ 

ucts  and  for  the  purchase  of  manufactured  goods.  He 
demonstrated  that  these  relations  had  been  created  by 
the  quarter  of  a  century  of  war  in  Europe,  forcing  the 
European  countries  to  buy  the  agricultural  products  of 
the  United  States  to  an  unusual  amount,  and  at  high 
prices,  and  showed  how  the  restoration  of  general  peace 
in  Europe  had  reduced  the  demand  for,  and  the  price 
of,  these  products,  while  it  left  the  United  States  de 
pendent  upon  Europe  for  manufactured  articles.  And 
he  urged  the  accomplishment  of  industrial  independence 


BEGINNING   OF    PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION      113 

as  a  necessary  corollary  of  political  independence.  He 
contended  that  the  aid  granted  to  the  manufacturing 
interests  would  impose  no  sacrifice  upon  the  agricultural 
and  commercial  interests  ;  that  by  the  establishment  of 
new  manufacturing  centres  new  home  markets  for  the 
products  of  agriculture  would  be  created,  which  would 
not  only  emancipate  the  country  from  the  necessity  of 
foreign  markets  for  these  products,  but  would  give  the 
country  steady  and  certain  markets,  under  its  own  con 
trol  ;  and  that  the  growth  of  manufactures  would 
speedily  result  in  the  establishment  of  an  export  trade 
in  manufactured  goods  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  and 
especially  to  South  America,  which  would  ultimately 
more  than  compensate  the  commercial  interests  for  the 
temporary  losses  they  might  incur  by  reason  of  the  in 
creased  duties.  This  was  a  strongly  tinted  picture  upon 
both  sides.  It  represented  the  distress  of  the  country 
too  darkly,  and  it  painted  the  speculative  benefits  of  the 
high  tariff  in  too  vivid  colors.  Moreover,  Mr.  Clay  now 
omitted  any  reference  to  the  temporary  character  of 
protection.  It  now  appeared  to  be  a  permanent  article 
of  his  creed. 

Webster  for  Massachusetts,  Cambreling  for  the  city 
of  New  York,  and  Barbour  for  the  South,  denied  Mr. 
Clay's  statement  in  regard  to  the  intense  and 
general  financial  distress  throughout  the  argument*1  aif- 
country,  and  demonstrated  the  destructive  Bwered- 
effects  of  a  high  tariff  upon  agriculture  and  commerce, 
and  upon  the  existing  manufacturing  interests  them 
selves.  They  contended  that  such  a  tariff  would  so 
prohibit  importation  of  foreign  products  as  to  make  it 
impossible  for  Europe  to  buy  the  agricultural  products 
of  the  United  States,  since  Europe  would  not  be  able 
to  pay  for  them  ;  that  the  promised  increase  of  domes 
tic  markets  would  not  at  all  compensate  for  the  loss  of 
8 


114  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

foreign  markets ;  that  commerce  would  thus  be  de 
stroyed  both  ways  ;  and  that  even  the  manufacturing 
industries  already  established  would  suffer  from  the 
unnatural  competition  which  would  be  created  by  the 
inducements  which  the  high  tariff  would  hold  out  to 
capital  otherwise  employed.  Mr.  Barbour 
pressionofthe  frankly  declared  that  the  slave  labor  of  the 

doctrine    that     ~        .,  ^         ..  _  .,  ,   .       .,        ,         , 

protection  South  could  not  be  used  in  the  development 
we /e  ahostiie  of  manufactures,  and  that,  therefore,  the  high 
tariff  must  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  North, 
by  making  the  South  tributary  to  the  North  for  all 
manufactured  goods. 

The  theory  accepted  by  all  parties,  however,  at  the 
moment,  was,  that  the  duties  were  paid  ultimately  by 
the  consumers  of  the  imported  goods.  Senator  Hayne, 
of  South  Carolina,  pronounced  this  doctrine  himself. 
Upon  this  view  the  North  must  pay  the  duties  equally, 
at  least,  with  the  South.  So  long,  then,  as  this  idea  was 
held,  and  so  long  as  the  commercial  interests  of  Massa 
chusetts,  Maine,  and  the  city  of  New  York  made  com 
mon  cause  with  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  South 
against  the  bill,  it  could  not  be  strictly  regarded  as  sec 
tional  legislation,  it  could  not  develop  into  a  political 
and  constitutional  question  between  the  North  and  the 
South. 

"While  this  combination  of  interests  was  not  able  to 

prevent  the  House  from  finally  passing  the  bill  by  a 

narrow  majority,  it  did  succeed  in  imposing 

The    bill  ,.   -,  ,.„      ,. 

amended  and  several  very  substantial  modifications  upon  it 
in  the  direction  of  more  moderate  protection. 
In  the  Senate  the  bill  suffered  still  further  modifica 
tion  in  the  same  direction.     The  burden  of  the  Senate's 
amendments  fell,  however,  on  the  wool-  and  hemp-grow 
ing  and  liquor-distilling  West.     It  was  for  this  reason 
that  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  refused  to  concur  in 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION      115 

them.  Recourse  was  then  had  to  a  conference  commit 
tee,  which  arranged  a  compromise  that  gave  a  little  less 
protection  than  the  House  had  voted,  and  a  little  more 
than  the  Senate  had  voted. 

The  tariff  of  May,  1824,  was  still  only  a  moderately  • 
protective  tariff.  It  was  certainly  in  only  one  partic 
ular  anything  like  prohibitory ;  it  preserved  the  high 
tariff  of  1816  on  coarse  cotton  goods.  In  other  re 
spects  it  was  not  much  more  than  a  continuation  of  the 
reasonable  duties  already  imposed. 

So  long  as  the  tariff  remained  moderately  protective, 
and  was  approved  in  Kentucky  and  Missouri,  and  disap 
proved  in  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire, 

ivr    •  ^  xt,      "j,       *  TVT        v     i  The  tariff  of 

Maine,  and  the  city  of  JNew  York,  and  so  long  1824  not  yet 
as  its  burdens  were  generally  believed  to  fall  secSona?  eieg? 
ultimately  upon  the  consumers  of  the  duti-  18latlon> 
able  articles,  it  could  not  take  on  the  form  of  a  sectional 
issue,  dominated  by  the  question  of  slavery.  Some  of 
the  Southerners  had,  indeed,  discovered  that  slave  labor 
could  not  be  employed  in  the  mills,  and  that,  therefore, 
protection  of  manufactures  would  not  secure  the  estab 
lishment  of  these  industries  in  the  South,  and  had  be 
gun  to  treat  the  tariff  question  in  a  manner  to  develop 
a  party  issue  out  of  it.  But  this  tendency  had  not  ad 
vanced  far  enough  in  1824  to  produce  a  division  of 
the  all-comprehending  Republican  party.  It  needed 
another  four  years  of  personal  differences  among  the 
leaders,  another  revision  of  the  tariff  in  the  direction  of 
higher  duties,  and  a  more  complete  consolidation  of  the 
North  for  protection,  before  this  result  could  be  attained. 
During  the  passage  of  the  bill  public  meetings  had 
been  held  throughout  South  Carolina  pro- 

.  ,  ,  ooutn    Car- 

testing  against  it,  and  the  year  subsequent  oima  and  the 

to  its  enactment  the  South  Carolina  legisla 
ture  denounced  it  as  unconstitutional,  but  the  people 


116  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

of  the  Commonwealth  acquiesced,  though  with  very  bad 
temper,  in  the  execution  of  the  law. 

The  other  question  of  internal  policy,  to  which  cer 
tain  of  the  historians  refer  as  suffering  under  the  baleful 
influences  of  the  slavery  interest  immediately  after  1820, 
was  the  question  of  national  internal  improvements. 

This  question  became  a  definite  issue  in  Congress  for 
the  first  time  on  December  19th,  1805,  when  a  committee 
The  histori-  of  the  Senate,  charged  with  the  duty  of  re- 
ment  dofel?he  porting  to  the  Senate  an  opinion  as  to  how 
d^trine  of  m-  fae  money  appropriated  in  the  Enabling  Act 
provements.  for  Ohio  ought  to  be  applied,  recommended 
the  use  of  it  for  the  building  of  a  road  across  the  Alle- 
ghanies  from  Cumberland,  in  Maryland,  to  a  point  upon 
the  Ohio  River,  near  Wheeling,  in  Virginia. 

If  we  may  take  the  first  Act  passed  by  Congress,  that 
of  March  29th,  1806,  in  regard  to  the  matter  as  express 
ing  the  views  of  the  Government  and  the  people  upon 
the  subject,  we  must  conclude  that  the  first  matured 
ideas  were  that  the  general  Government  had  the  power  to 
lay  out  and  construct  roads  within  and  through  the 
Commonwealths,  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Com 
monwealths  through  which  they  might  pass.  The 
Cumberland  road  was  originally  built  by  the  general 
Government,  after  the  consent  thereto  of  Maryland, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  had  been  obtained.  The 
appropriations  for  subsequent  repairs  upon  the  road 
were,  however,  not  considered  as  requiring  the  consent 
of  those  Commonwealths  before  being  made  or  expended. 

The  second  stage  in  the  evolution  of  opinion  upon 
the  subject  was  attained  in  the  year  1817,  when  Mr. 

Madison's  Madison  vetoed  Mr.  Calhoun's  bill  for  setting 
tdeerana?°ni£-  aside  tne  bonus  and  the  dividends  to  be  paid 
provements.  to  the  Government  by  the  United  States 
Bank  as  a  fund  for  constructing  roads  and  canals,  and 


BEGINNING    OF   PAETICULARISTIC    REACTION      117 

improving  the  navigation  of  water-courses  in  the  several 
Commonwealths.  This  bill  proposed  to  authorize  the 
general  Government  to  expend  the  money,  thus  appro 
priated,  only  with  the  consent  of  the  Commonwealth, 
or  Commonwealths,  in  which  the  proposed  improvement 
might  lay,  antecedently  given,  and  distributed  the  sum 
to  be  spent  among  the  Commonwealths  according  to  the 
ratio  of  their  representation  in  the  national  House  of 
Representatives.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  Madison 
vetoed  this  bill  on  the  ground  that  the  power  to  enact 
it  was  not  to  be  found  among  the  enumerated  powers  of 
Congress,  and  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  and 
proper  means  for  carrying  out  any  of  the  enumerated 
powers. 

The  President  drew  no  distinction  between  the  power 
to  construct  internal  improvements  and  the  power  to 
appropriate  money  for  their  construction,  nor  between 
such  powers  and  the  power  to  administer  them,  or  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  them.  He  regarded  all,  or 
any  of  these  things,  as  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution. 
He  furthermore  declared  that  the  consent  of  the  several 
Commonwealths  to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  by  the 
general  Government  could  not  make  the  exercise  of  them 
constitutional,  unless  that  consent  should  be  given  in 
the  form  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

The  vote  upon  the  vetoed  bill  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  manifested  the  fact  that  a  substantial 
majority  of  that  body  remained  unconvinced  by  the 
President's  argument.  It  is  reasonably  certain  that 
Mr.  Madison's  views  were  not  the  views  of  the  country 
at  that  moment.  A  large  majority  of  the  people  felt 
that  he  had  abandoned  his  earlier  faith  in  regard  to  this 
subject.  An  analysis  of  the  vote  upon  the  vetoed  bill 
shows  that  New  England  was  almost  unanimous  in 
opposing  the  measure  ;  that  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 


118  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

lina  also  opposed  it,  though  less  decidedly  ;  that  New 
York,,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  the  Northwest, 
together  with  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  favored  it ; 
and  that  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  inclined  to  favor  it. 
Certainly,  down  to  1817,  no  influence  of  the  slavery  in 
terest  upon  the  question  of  internal  improvements  is 
discoverable.  It  was  evident  that  the  general  opinion 
was,  that  the  middle  Atlantic  section  and  the  Northwest 
would  receive  the  larger  share  of  the  benefits  of  a  na 
tional  system  of  internal  improvements.  It  was  also 
evident  that  New  England  viewed  the  matter  purely  in 
that  light,  and  that  Virginia  was  impelled  wholly  by  her 
ancient  principle  of  strict  construction  of  the  powers  of 
the  general  Government.  It  was  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia  whose  actions  appeared  at  this  juncture  to 
spring  from  unselfish  and  patriotic  motives. 

The  third  stage  in  the  development  of  constitutional 
interpretation  in  reference  to  this  subject  was  attained 
The  bin  of  in  the  year  1822.  In  May  of  that  year  Con- 
na?  fmprove-  gress  passed  a  bill  appropriating  money  for 
meats.  tbe  repajr  Of  the  Cumberland  road,  and  au 

thorizing  the  President  to  cause  the  erection  of  toll-gates 
upon  it,  and  to  appoint  toll-gatherers.  The  toll  charges, 
and  penalties  for  attempting  to  avoid  paying  them,  and 
for  not  keeping  to  the  left  in  passing,  were  fixed  in  the 
bill  itself.  That  is,  this  bill  assumed  for  the  general 
Government  not  only  the  powers  of  appropriating  and  ex 
pending  money  for  the  construction  of  the  road,  but  the 
power  of  operating  the  road  and  jurisdiction  over  it.  The 
passage  of  such  a  bill  is  certainly  very  good  evidence  that 
President  Madison's  views,  as  expressed  in  his  veto  mes 
sage  of  March  3rd,  1817,  were  not  the  views  of  the  coun 
try  in  1822  upon  the  subject  of  internal  improvements. 

It  is  interesting  and  instructive  to  analyze  the  vote 
upon  this  bill.  In  the  House  of  Representatives  the 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION      119 

members  from  the  New  England  section  were  nearly 
evenly  divided,  pro  and  con.  The  majority  of  the 
New  Yorkers  voted  against  it.  The  Penn-  Passage  of 
sylvanians  were  nearly  balanced.  The  Mary-  anaiysis'o/the 
landers  voted  for  it.  The  Virginians  were  vote  upon  it. 
against  it  by  a  decided  majority.  The  North  Carolin 
ians  were  indifferent.  The  South  Carolinians  and 
Georgians  abandoned  their  high  national  ground  of 
1817,  and  voted  unanimously  against  it.  The  Kepre- 
sentatives  from  the  Northwest  went  unanimously  for 
it ;  and  those  from  Kentucky  now  wheeled  into  line 
with  them.  Lastly,  while  the  Tennesseeans  still  main 
tained  their  attitude  of  indifference,  the  members  from 
the  Commonwealths  south  of  Tennessee,  and  west  of 
Georgia,  all  voted  for  the  bill. 

In  the  Senate  the  majority  in  favor  of  the  measure 
was  very  large.  Only  the  Senators  from  the  Carolinas 
and  Alabama,  and  one  Senator  from  Missouri,  voted 
against  it. 

There  is  somewhat  more  of  an  appearance  of  slavery 
influence  in  the  vote  upon  this  bill  than  upon  the  bill  of 
1817,  in  that  South  Carolina  showed  herself  practically 
a  unit  against  this  bill.  Still  it  is  probable  that  this 
opposition  rested  upon  other  grounds.  Certainly  when 
we  read  in  the  ( '  Annals  of  Congress,"  that  so  stanch  a 
friend  of  free  labor,  so  eminent  a  lawyer,  and  so  honor 
able  a  man  as  John  W.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  said  of  this 
bill  that  it  was  so  important  in  its  character,  and  pro 
posed  such  a  violation  of  the  Constitution,  that  he  felt 
obliged  to  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  it,  we  must 
concede  that  other  motives  may  have  influenced  the 
statesmen  of  South  Carolina  than  such  as  might  have 
sprung  from  subserviency  to  the  interests  of  slavery. 

If  we  review  the  analysis  of  the  vote  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  we  shall  see  that  the  entire  West — tak- 


120  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ing  the  Appalachian   range  as  the   dividing  line,  for 

that  period,  between  the  East  and  the  West — was  for 

The  bin  in  ^e  k*^>  wnile  the  whole  East,  with  the  excep- 

the   interests   tion  of  Maryland,  which  was  specially  inter- 

of  the  West.  .     -.   .       .,     J        ^  .,,  .       ,    .. 

ested  in  the  road,  was-  either  against  it  or  in 
different  to  it.  The  Eastern  Commonwealths  had  made 
their  roads  with  Commonwealth  money,  and  did  not 
wish  to  assist  the  Western  Commonwealths  to  make 
theirs  by  giving  them  national  money  with  which  to  do 
it.  The  West,  on  the  other  hand,  was  new  and  com 
paratively  poor,  and  wanted  the  nation  to  help  it  out 
of  the  mud.  This  is  unquestionably  the  plain  state 
ment  of  the  situation  from  the  point  of  view  of  inter 
ests.  The  interests  of  slavery  played  but  little  part,  if 
any  at  all,  in  the  distribution  of  the  vote. 

President  Monroe  promptly  vetoed  the   bill,  on   the 

ground  that   it   was  in  excess  of   the   powers  granted 

p       'dnt  ^°  Congress   by  the  Constitution.     He  also 

Monroe'sveto,   sent  a   communication,    of    the  same    date 

andcommum- 

cation  of  May  as   the  veto,  to   the   House   oi   xtepresenta- 

4th,  1S22.  . .  ,..,..  .        . 

tives,  explaining  his  views  upon  the  princi 
ples  of  the  Constitution  generally,  and  upon  those  pro 
visions  specially,  which  could  be  regarded  as  vesting 
powers  in  the  general  Government  concerning  internal 
improvements.  The  paper  is  prolix,  confused,  and  con 
fusing,  but,  upon  the  specific  question  at  issue,  the 
propositions  advanced  are  definite  and  intelligible.  He 
held  that  the  power  of  Congress  in  regard  to  internal 
improvements  was  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution  only 
by  implication,  by  implication  from  the  power  to  ap 
propriate  money,  and  that,  therefore,  its  nature  and 
limitations  were  to  be  drawn  from  the  character  of  the 
power  to  appropriate  money.  He  contended,  on  the 
one  side,  that  the  power  of  Congress  to  appropriate 
money  was  not  limited  to  the  objects  enumerated  in  the 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION      121 

Constitution,  but  was,  on  the  other  side,  limited  by  the 
spirit  of  the  Constitution  to  national  purposes.  He 
concluded,  therefore,  that  Congress  was  empowered  to 
appropriate  money  to  internal  improvements  of  a  na 
tional  character.  But  he  asserted  that  Congress  could 
not,  under  the  power  to  appropriate  money,  establish 
jurisdiction  over  such  improvements,  or  authorize  the 
executive  department  of  the  Government  to  administer 
them.  The  bill  in  question  did  just  that,  and  it  was 
for  this  reason  that  the  President  returned  it  with  his 
objections. 

The  President's  views  were  apparently  convincing 
to  many  who  had  voted  for  the  bill.  Upon  president 
its  passage,  the  vote  in  the  House  of  Kepre- 


sentatives  was  eighty-seven  for,   and  sixty-  the  vote  upon 

th.6  V6tO 

eight  against,  the  measure.     After  the  veto, 

it   stood   sixty-eight  yeas  and   seventy-two  nays. 

It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  the  view  expressed  by 
President  Monroe  in  the  paper  accompanying  the  veto 
of  this  bill  was  the  view  which  prevailed  throughout 
the  country  in  the  year  1824.  It  may  be  also  said  that 
the  power  of  Congress  to  authorize  the  President  to  ex 
pend  the  appropriation  by  causing  the  improvements  to 
be  planned  and  constructed  was  generally  regarded,  in 
1824,  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  power  to  appro 
priate  money  for  the  same.  The  acts  of  Congress  ap 
propriating  money  for  the  construction  and  repair  of 
roads,  canals,  etc.,  after,  as  well  as  before,  that  date, 
seem  to  proceed  upon  this  theory. 

The  great  difficulty  which  lay  in  the  way  of  the 
realization  of  President  Monroe's  principle  of  the  ap 
propriation  of  national  money  for  internal  improve 
ments  of  a  national  character  was  the  proper  deter 
mination  of  the  question  as  to  what  improvements  were 
really  of  that  character.  The  danger  was  that  the  ap- 


122  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

propriation  bills  would  become  log-rolling  measures  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  national  money  for  matters 
of  local  concern.  This  difficulty  was  distinctly  felt,  and 
cong  res-  Congress  undertook  to  meet  it  by  the  Act  of 
i8°24afor  d2-  APril  30tll>  1824,  which  authorized  the  Presi- 
natfonaihfrom  dent  to  cause  "  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates 
to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  such  roads  and 
canals  as  he  might  deem  of  national  impor 
tance,"  and  required  him  to  lay  the  same  before  Con 
gress. 

From  all  this  it  is  apparent  that,  down  to  the  presi 
dential  election  of  1824,  the  development  of  a  pro- 
slavery,  strict-constructionist,  "  States'-rights  "  party  is 
hardly  to  be  discovered  in  the  attitude  of  the  different 
sections  of  the  country  toward  the  question  of  internal 
improvements.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  slaveholders 
had  become  conscious  during  the  Missouri  struggle 
that  their  interests  demanded  the  establishment  of  a 
particularistic  view  of  the  Constitution  and  a  particu 
laristic  practice  in  the  working  of  the  governmental  sys 
tem  of  the  country,  not  much  progress  had  been  made, 
in  the  period  between  1820  and  1824,  in  the  way  of 
twisting  the  policies  developed  during  the  previous 
eight  years  into  line  with  such  a  view.  In  fact  the 
foreign  relations  of  the  United  States  were  again,  in 
1822,  of  a  somewhat  threatening  character,  and  the  con 
sideration  of  these  relations  was  acting  as  a  certain 
hindrance  to  the  development  of  parties  upon  internal 
issues. 

The  menace,  or  perhaps  it  would  be  more  correct  to 

say  the  apparent  menace,  came  from  two  quarters ;  but  in 

Foreign  re-  neither  case  did  it  relate  immediately  to  the 

Mon?^^  territory  or  interests  of  the  United  States. 

In  both  cases  it  was  consequential  and  more 

or  less  remote. 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC   REACTION      123 

In  the  first  place,  the  movements  of  Russia  in  the 
North  Pacific  had  created  grave  apprehensions.  At 
the  close  of  the  first  decade  of  the  cen-  Russja  ana 
tury  the  Russian  American  Company  put 
forward  a  claim  to  the  territory  of  the  North 
American  continent  along  the  Pacific  coast  from 
Behring's  Strait  to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River, 
and  even  to  points  south  of  the  Columbia.  Really 
this  claim  came  into  conflict  only  with  the  rights  of 
Great  Britain  and  Spain,  but  the  United  States,  having 
the  presentiment  of  its  future,  if  not  a  legal  claim  to 
any  part  of  this  territory  as  a  part  of  Louisiana,  re 
garded  the  Russian  movement  with  jealous  discontent. 
And  when,  on  September  16th,  the  Russian  Czar 
issued  an  edict,  asserting  Russia's  rights  to  the  North 
Pacific  territory  from  Behring's  Strait  to  the  fifty-first 
parallel  of  north  latitude,  it  was  natural  that  this  discon 
tent  should  become  hostile  in  its  nature.  The  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  declared  its  dissent  from  the 
Russian  pretensions,  and  the  matter  rested  momentarily 
with  that. 

At  the  same  time  the  other  danger  was  developing. 
The  European  reaction  against  the  terrible  excesses  of 
the  Revolution  and  the  despotism  of  Bona-  The  H  0 }  y 
parte  had  assumed  the  form  of  an  alliance  Alliance- 
between  the  Governments  of  the  great  continental 
states,  Russia,  Austria,  Prussia,  and  France,  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  each  by  the  power  of  all  against 
the  reappearance  of  revolutionary  movements  anywhere. 
Great  Britain  had  scented  in  this  Holy  Alliance  a  com 
bination  of  continental  powers  which  might  prove,  in 
some  degree  at  least,  as  dangerous  to  her  continental 
relations  as  the  commercial  system  of  Bonaparte  had 
been.  There  is  no  doubt,  too,  that  there  was  a  large 
party  in  England  which  repudiated  the  fundamental 


124  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

political  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Alliance  Powers,  the 
doctrine  of  the  jure  divino  monarchy.  England  had, 
in  fact,  repudiated  that  doctrine  at  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  For  these  reasons  the  British 
Government  had  declined  to  enter  the  Holy  League, 
and  regarded  it  with  suspicion  and  ill-concealed  hos 
tility. 

The  United  States  Government  paid  little  attention 

to  its  workings  so  long  as  they  were  confined  to  purely 

European  relations,  but  when,  in  1822,  at  the 

The      Con-  „    , ,  .    TT  ,  .   _ 

gressatvero-  congress  of  these  powers  at  Verona,  which 
had  been  assembled  to  consider  the  question 
of  aiding  the  Spanish  Government  to  suppress  the  in 
surrection  against  its  authority  in  Spain,  the  subject  of 
aiding  that  Government  to  re-establish  its  authority  over 
Spain's  revolting  colonies  in  North  and  South  America 
was  discussed,  serious  apprehensions  were  roused  in  both 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  It  was  stated, 
and  generally  believed,  in  the  United  States,  that  the 
plan  was  the  re-establishment  of  the  Spanish  power  over 
all  of  Spain's  American  possessions,  except  Mexico  and 
California,  and  the  cession  of  Mexico  to  France,  and  of 
California  to  Russia,  in  consideration  of  the  military 
aid  to  be  rendered  to  Spain  by  these  two  great  powers 
in  the  work  of  restoration. 

To  the  United  States  the  supposed  intentions  of  Rus 
sia  in  respect  to  the  Pacific  coast  appeared  the  more 
immediate  danger,  and  the  United  States 
decuiration  to  Government  addressed  its  diplomacy  to  this 
Baron  Tuyi.  qnestion  first<  On  July  17th?  1823,  the  Sec 
retary  of  State,  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  declared  to 
the  Russian  Minister  at  Washington,  Baron  Tuyl,  that 
"  we  should  contest  the  right  of  Russia  to  any  territorial 
establishment  on  this  continent,  and  that  we  should 
assume  distinctly  the  principle  that  the  American  con- 


BEGINNING    OF   PAETICULARISTIC   REACTION      125 

tinents  are  no  longer  subjects  for  any  new  European 
colonial  establishments." 

The  following  month,  the  British  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,,  Mr.  George  Canning,  proposed  to  the  Minister 
of  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St.  Mr.  can  - 
James,  Mr.  Benjamin  Rush,  a  joint  declara-  poslf 'to  *£?" 
tion  by  the  British  Government  and  the  ^U8h- 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  Europe,  that  the 
two  Governments  would  not  remain  indifferent  to  ar 
intervention  by  the  Holy  Alliance  Powers  to  restore  the 
Spanish  authority  over  Spain's  revolting  American  colo 
nies.  Both  commercial  interests  and  political  principles 
moved  the  British  Government  to  make  this  proposi 
tion. 

Mr.  Rush  had  not  been  instructed  by  his  Government 
in  anticipation  of  the  British  advances,  but  he  offered  to 
assume  the  responsibility  of  joining  for  the  United  States 
in  the  declaration,  provided  the  British  Government 
would  acknowledge  the  independence  of  the  revolting 
Spanish  colonies  in  America,  as  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  had  already  done.  The  British  minister 
was  not  then  prepared  to  go  so  far,  and  the  plan  of  the 
joint  declaration  fell  through.  But  Mr.  Canning  de 
clared  for  his  Government  to  the  French  Mr  Can. 
ambassador  at  St.  James,  Prince  Polignac,  ring's  deciara- 

,  ~  i    -n     •        •  "On  k°  P*"11106 

that  Great  Britain  would  resist  any  interven-  Poiignac. 
tion  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  Alliance  Powers  in  the  ques 
tion  between  Spain  and  her  revolting  American  colonies, 
and  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  annual 
message  of  December  2nd,  1823,  stated  the  position 
which  the  United  States  Government  and  the  people  of 
the  United  States  ought,  in  his  opinion,  to  assume,  and 
would,  in  his  opinion,  assume,  in  regard  to  the  whole 
subject. 

Mr.  Monroe  dealt  first  with  the  question  of  Russian 


126  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

colonization  upon  the  Pacific  coast.  After  informing 
Congress  of  the  instructions  which  had  been  given  to  the 
The  "Mon-  Minister  representing  the  United  States  at 
roe  Doctrine."  g^  Petersburg  f  or  negotiating  with  the  Czar's 
Government,  he  said  :  "In  the  discussions  to  which  this 
interest  has  given  rise,  and  in  the  arrangements  by 
which  they  may  terminate,  the  occasion  has  been  judged 
proper  for  asserting,  as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the 
American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  con 
dition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are 
henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future 
colonization  by  any  European  powers." 

Toward  the  close  of  the  message  Mr.  Monroe  ad 
dressed  himself  to  the  other  question,  the  question  of 
intervention  by  the  Holy  Alliance  Powers  in  the  contest 
between  Spain  and  her  revolting  American  colonies  in 
the  following  language  :  "In  the  wars  of  European 
powers,  in  matters  relating  to  themselves,  we  have  never 
taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our  policy  so 
to  do.  It  is  only  when  our  rights  are  invaded  or  seriously 
menaced  that  we  resent  injuries  or  make  preparations 
for  our  defence.  With  the  movements  in  this  hemi 
sphere  we  are,  of  necessity,  more  immediately  connected, 
and  by  causes  which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened 
and  impartial  observers.  The  po^*ical  system  of  the 
allied  powers  is  essentially  different  in"  this  respect  from 
that  of  America.  This  difference  proceeds  from  that 
which  exists  in  their  respective  governments,  and  to 
the  defence  of  our  own,  which  has  been  achieved  by  the 
loss  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  and  matured  by  the 
wisdom  of  our  most  enlightened  citizens,  and  under 
which  we  have  enjoyed  unexampled  felicity,  this  whole 
nation  is  devoted.  We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and 
to  the  amicable  relations  existing  between  the  United 


BEGINNING   OF   PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION      127 

States  and  those  powers,  to  declare  that  we  should  con 
sider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their  system 
to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our 
peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  of  any 
European  power  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not 
interfere,  but  with  the  Governments  who  have  declared 
their  independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  inde 
pendence  we  have  on  great  consideration  and  on  just 
principles  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  inter 
position  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or  con 
trolling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  Eu 
ropean  power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  a  manifestation 
of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the  United  States. 
.  .  .  It  is  impossible  that  the  allied  powers  should 
extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion  of  either 
continent  without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness  ; 
nor  can  anyone  believe  that  our  Southern  brethren,  if 
left  to  themselves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord. 
It  is  equally  impossible,  therefore,  that  we  should  be 
hold  such  interposition,  in  any  form,  with  indifference. 
If  we  look  to  the  comparative  strength  and  resources 
of  Spain  and  these  new  Governments,  and  their  dis 
tance  from  each  other,  it  must  be  obvious  that  she 
can  never  subdue  them.  It  is  still  the  true  policy  of 
the  United  States  to  leave  the  parties  to  themselves, 
in  the  hope  that  other  powers  will  pursue  the  same 
course." 

These  statements  by  Mr.  Monroe  of  his  opinion  as  to 
what  the  diplomacy  of  the  United  States  ought  to  be, 
and  would  be,  upon  the  subjects  of  the  es-  The  mean 
tablishment  of  new  European  colonies  in  ing  of  the 

. ,        .     ,  . .  ,    . ,         TT   T         *  i      Monroe  prop- 

America,  the  intervention  of  the  Holy  Al-  ositions  in 
liance  Powers  in  the  question  between  Spain 
and  her  revolting  American  colonies,  and  the  forcible 
imposition  by  these  powers  of  the  jure  divino  monarchy 


128  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

upon  these  peoples,  who  had  established  republican 
forms  of  government  for  themselves,  have  had  the 
name  fixed  upon  them  by  a  later  generation  of  "  The 
Monroe  Doctrine."  There  is  no  difficulty  in  under 
standing  these  statements  as  Mr.  Monroe  understood 
them. 

Neither  he  nor  his  Secretary  of  State  ever  called 
them  a  "  Doctrine."  With  them  they  were  simply  the 
opinions  of  the  Administration  in  regard  to  the  course 
which  the  United  States  ought  to  pursue,  and  would 
probably  pursue,  in  meeting  certain  exigencies,  the  pos 
sibility  of  the  arising  of  which  passed  entirely  away  be 
fore  the  close  of  the  first  half  of  this  century.  These 
opinions  were  simply  that  the  United  States  ought  to 
resist,  and  would  resist,  the  planting  of  any  new  colo 
nial  establishments  in  America,  or  the  intervention  of 
the  Holy  Alliance  Powers  in  the  question  between  Spain 
and  her  revolting  American  colonies,  or  the  forcible  im 
position  of  the  jure  divino  monarchy,  the  political  sys 
tem  of  these  powers,  upon  the  new  republican  govern 
ments  of  South  and  Middle  America. 

The  month  following  the  publication  of  this  message, 
January,  1824,  Mr.  Clay  attempted  to  move  Congress  to 
Failure  to  indorse  that  part  of  the  President's  opinions 
grSrtoCthense  which  referred  to  the  intervention  of  the 
propositions.  Allied  Powers  in  the  conflict  between  Spain 
and  her  revolting  colonies,  but  the  resolution  which  he 
offered  to  that  effect  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  never 
called  up.  Mr.  Poinsett,  of  South  Carolina,  made  a 
like  attempt  later,  but  with  no  more  success.  The 
Congress  of  that  day  had  altogether  too  much  intel 
ligence  to  make  diplomatic  opinions,  advanced  by  the 
Administration,  either  laws  of  the  land,  or  joint  or  con 
current  resolutions  of  the  legislative  department  of  the 
Government. 


BEGINNING   OF    PARTICULARISTIC    REACTION      129 

Thus  neither  in  the  question  of  the  tariff,  nor  in  that 
of  internal  improvements,  nor,  naturally,  in  the  diplo 
matic  questions,  is  anything  more  than  the  The  ^^ 
faint  beginnings  of  the  particularistic  reac-  laristic  reac- 

,        -,.  i    •       xi  -111  t ion  scarcely 

tion  to  be  discovered  in  the  period  between  discoverable 
1820  and  1824.  In  fact,  it  may  be  said  that  * 
the  year  1820  marks  roughly  the  date  of  the  extinction 
of  the  old  Federal  party,  and  of  the  almost  complete  ab 
sorption  of  the  whole  voting  population  in  the  Republi 
can  party.  In  the  presidential  election  of  that  year 
the  candidate  of  the  Eepublican  party,  Mr.  Monroe, 
received  two  hundred  and  thirty-one  of  the  two  hun 
dred  and  thirty-two  electoral  votes  cast,  and  the  one 
elector  who  did  not  vote  for  him  was  a  Republican. 
The  Federal  party  did  not  even  undertake  to  present  a 
ticket.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  preservation  of 
its  own '  dominance,  the  Federal  party  had  committed 
two  grave  errors,  one  of  principle  and  one  of  policy. 
It  had  held  to  the  principle  that  the  mass  of  men  are 
not  fit  to  govern  themselves,  but  should  be  governed  by 
the  few  who  are  wise  and  good  ;  and  it  had  adopted  the 
policy  of  too  close  alliance  with  the  commercial  interests 
of  the  country.  The  levelling,  not  to  say  debasing,  in 
fluences  of  the  French  political  philosophy,  which  rolled 
like  a  tidal  wave  over  the  country  during  the  last  dec 
ade  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  was  worked  up  into 
a  political  dogma  by  Jefferson  and  his  disciples,  together 
with  the  reflex  influence  of  the  practical  equality  which 
established  itself  among  the  first  adventurers  who  set 
tled  the  lands  beyond  the  Alleghanies,  destroyed  the 
Federal  party,  upon  the  side  of  principle  ;  while  the 
great  extension  of  the  agricultural  interests,  produced 
by  these  same  settlements,  made  it  intolerable  upon  the 
side  of  policy.  The  earlier  advantage  which  the  Fed 
eral  party,  as  the  upholder  of  centralization,  enjoyed 


130  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

over  the  Kepnblican  party,  as  the  champion  of  <f  States'- 
rights,"  had  been  lost  by  the  nationalization  of  the 
Eepublican  party  through  the  War  of  1812,  and  the  de 
nationalization  of  the  Federal  party  through  the  same 
experiences.  In  1820,  therefore,  there  was  only  one 
party  in  fact  and  in  principle.  It  is  undoubtedly  true 
that  the  struggle  of  the  years  1819  and  1820  over  the 
Missouri  question  had  sowed  the  seeds  of  dissension  in 
this  all-comprehending  party ;  but  four  years  did  not 
constitute  a  period  of  time  sufficient  for  their  com 
pleted  growth  and  fructification.  The  presidential  con 
test  of  1824  could  not,  therefore,  be  fought  under  the 
issues  of  party  principles.  It  was  little  more,  and,  under 
the  circumstances,  it  could  be  little  more,  than  a  per 
sonal  contest  between  the  leaders  of  the  Eepublican 
party.  The  result  of  it,  however,  contributed  very 
largely  to  the  development  of  political  differences,  and 
to  the  organization  of  parties  upon  the  basis  of  these 
differences.  It  must,  therefore,  be  described  with  some 
particularity. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION   OF   1824 

General  Character  of  the  Presidential  Contest  of  1824 — John 
Quincy  Adams— DeWitt  Clinton— William  H.  Crawford— John 
C.  Calhoun — Daniel  Webster — Henry  Clay — Andrew  Jackson 
—The  Nomination  of  Presidential  Candidates  in  1824— Failure 
of  the  Electors  to  Elect  the  President— Territorial  Distribution 
of  the  Electoral  Vote— New  York  in  the  Election  of  1824— 
South  Carolina  in  the  Election  of  1824— Pennsylvania  in  the 
Election  of  1824 — The  Election  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives — Clay  Master  of  the  Situation — Clay's  Support  of  Adams, 
and  Kremer's  Charge  of  Bargain  and  Corruption — The  Elec 
tion  of  Adams  by  the  House  of  Representatives— Clay  and  the 
Secretaryship  of  State— Threats  of  the  Organization  of  an 
Anti-administration  Party — The  Bargain  between  Clay  and 
Adams  a  mere  Suspicion — Clay's  Nomination  to  the  Secretary 
ship  of  State  in  the  Senate— The  Composition  of  the  new  Anti- 
administration  Party. 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  from  1820  to  1824  the  po 
litical  arena  was  clear  of  the  combats  of  principles,  and 
furnished  the  tilting-ground  for  the  -jousts 

.    .  -™       .     .  General 

oi  personal  ambition.      The  "  Virginia  dy-  character    of 
nasty"  became  extinct  with  the  expiration  of  tial  contest  of 
Monroe's  second  term,  and  the  way  was  open  J 
for  anyone  to  enter  the  lists  who  was  willing   to  risk 
the  shocks  of  the  encounter. 

At  no  time  in  our  history  has  the  roll  of  our  political 
nobility  been  more  full  of  brilliant  names  and  char 
acters. 


132  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

First  of  all,  there  was  John  Quincy  Adams,  the  Secre 
tary  of  State,  the  "  knight  without  fear  and  without 
John  Quincy  reproach,"  blunt,  grim,  almost  rude,  through 
Adams.  an  unconscious  suspicion  that  politeness 

might  encourage  the  approach  of  temptation  ;  now  fifty- 
seven  years  old,  and  trained  in  statecraft  and  diplo 
macy  almost  from  childhood  ;  the  best  equipped  states 
man  and  the  most  experienced  statesman  which  America 
had  up  to  that  time  produced  ;  ready  to  serve  his  coun 
try  in  any  honorable  capacity  to  which  that  country 
might  freely  call  him,  and  just  as  ready  to  withdraw 
from  that  service  when  his  country  indicated  the  desire 
to  dispense  with  him  ;  puritanic,  austere,  and  to  the 
last  degree  patriotic,  his  one  qualification  for  the 
presidential  office  was  the  capacity  to_ discharge  its 
duties  wisely,  honestly,  and  loyally,  a  qualification  which 
too  rarely  wins  in  popular  elections. 

Then,  there  was  DeWitt  Clinton,  noble  in  personal 
appearance,  dignified  in  manners,  eloquent  in  debate, 
DeWitt  ciin-  sagacious  and  far-sighted  in  business,  a  lover 
ton-  of  science  and  a  scientist  himself  ;  the  great 

promoter  of  the  Erie  Canal,  which  was  now  on  the 
point  of  completion,  and  which  was  destined  to  revolu 
tionize  the  commerce  of  the  country  ;  still  only  fifty-five 
years  of  age,  although  he  had  been  considered  more 
than  twenty  years  before  as  the  most  promising  man  of 
the  nation,  and  had  within  that  period  been  United 
States  Senator,  mayor  of  New  York  City,  candidate  for 
the  presidency  against  Mr.  Madison,  and  twice  Governor 
of  New  York. 

Then,  there  was  William  H.  Crawford,  a  Virginian  by 
birth  and  a  Georgian  by  education  ;  a  man  of  large 
wmiam  H.  wealth  and  of  imposing  bearing  ;  enjoying  a 
Crawford.  very  great  reputation  for  statesmanship  with 
out  any  easily  discoverable  foundation  therefor  ;  now 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION   OF   1824       133 

fifty- two  years  of  age,  and  having  already  been  United 
States  Senator,  Minister  to  France,  Secretary  of  War,  and 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  which  latter  office  he  still 
held ;  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Martin  Van  Buren, 
the  most  astute  politician  among  the  great  men  of  his 
time.  He  had  the  political  friendship  and  support  of 
Van  Buren.  The  two  seem  to  have  been  attracted  to 
each  other  by  the  similarity- of  their  methods.  He  was 
the  author  of  the  law  of  1820,  limiting  the  term  of  the 
officials  of  the  Treasury  to  four  years,  the  first  step  in 
the  direction  of  making  the  United  States  civil  service  a 
political  machine,  such  as  Van  Buren  and  his  fellows  in 
the  "  Regency"  had  made  out  of  the  civil  service  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  New  York.  It  is  not  astonishing 
that  he,  rather  than  any  of  the  other  aspirants  for  the 
presidency,  procured  the  assembling  of  a  caucus  of  the 
members  of  Congress,  and  secured  a  nomination  from  it, 
thus  making  himself  the  "regular"  candidate.  Not  a 
third  of  the  members,  however,  appeared  at  the  caucus, 
and  the  nomination  did  him  more  harm  than  good. 

Then,  there  was  Calhoun,  grave,  pure,  and  patriotic 
as  Adams  himself,  and  almost  as  puritanic  ;  South  Caro 
linian  by  birth,  Scotch-Irish  by  blood,  Pres-  John  c  Cal. 
byterian  in  religion,  and  New  Englander  by  houn- 
education  ;  great,  both  in  dialectics  and  in  the  admin 
istration  of  affairs  ;  rather  more  given  to  introspec 
tion  than  to  objective  research  ;  speculative,  therefore, 
rather  than  inductive  in  his  mental  processes  ;  most 
fascinating  in  conversation,  kind  and  generous  in  his 
feelings,  and  a  gentleman  everywhere  and  upon  all  occa 
sions  ;  a  personality  to  be  looked  up  to  with  reverence, 
admiration,  and  confidence.  He  was  still  only  forty-two 
years  of  age,  and  yet  he  had  already  passed  fourteen 
years  in  public  service,  first  as  member  of  the  South 
Carolina  Legislature,  then  as  member  of  Congress,  and 


134  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

then  as  Monroe's  Secretary  of  War  for  both  terms, 
which  office  he  still  held. 

Then,  there  was  Webster,  of  the  same  age  with  Oal- 
houn,  though  as  yet  only  five  years  in  public  service ; 
Daniel  Web-  ^ne  mos^  majestic  personality  which  Amer- 
ster-  ica  has  ever  produced,  though  born  of  the 

hardy  yeomanry  of  New  England  ;  profound  in  thought, 
grandly  eloquent  in  speech,  and  royally  impressive  in 
bearing ;  full  of  good  cheer,  in  spite  of  the  puritanism 
of  his  ancestry,  enjoying  his  friends  and  adored  by  his 
friends  ;  a  splendid  lawyer,  a  great  statesman,  and  an 
incomparable  orator — in  a  word,  a  demigod  ;  by  no 
means  so  austere  in  character  as  in  appearance ;  liable, 
as  genius  too  often  is,  to  sometimes  break  over  the  re 
straints  of  customary  morality,  but  doing  it  in  so  grand 
and  natural  a  manner  as  to  make  the  rule  which  he  had 
broken  seem  narrow,  insignificant,  and  mean. 

And  then,  there  was  Clay,  the  most  genuine  American 

of  them  all ;  rather  superficial  in  thought,  entrancing 

in  his  oratory,  with  a  voice  as  winning  as  the 

Henry  Clay.  ,  J'  .        ° 

siren  s  song,  elegant  and  gallant  in  his  man 
ners,  perfectly  irresistible  in  conversation,  jovial  and 
cheery  and  happy,  the  prince  of  good  fellows,  loved 
and  worshipped  by  everybody  who  knew  him  ;  enthusi 
astic  in  his  patriotism,  seeking  to  make  his  country  not 
only  independent  of  the  world  in  all  its  policies  but 
the  leader  of  the  world  in  civilization,  a  zealous  prop 
agandist  of  American  republicanism,  the  "lion-hearted 
knight "  of  American  statesmen.  He  was  now  in  the 
prime  of  his  manhood,  forty-seven  years  of  age.  He 
had  been  a  member  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
at  thirty,  but  it  was  upon  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Eep- 
resentatives,  and  as  Speaker  of  the  House,  which  office 
he  again  held,  that  he  had  won  his  most  brilliant  laurels. 
He  was  at  the  moment  the  great  champion  of  the  tar- 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION    OF   1824        135 

iff,  of  national  internal  improvements,  and  of  the  cause 
of  the  South  American  States  in  their  struggle  for  inde 
pendence  against  Spain  and  Portugal — of  what  he  called 
the  American  system  of  political  and  industrial  inde 
pendence.  Of  his  competitors  only  Crawford  differed 
with  him  in  regard  to  these  principles  in  anything  more 
than  a  slight  degree.  Crawford  was  considered  as  rather 
more  particularistic,  especially  in  his  views  on  the  ques 
tion  of  internal  improvements.  But  Clay,  with  his 
genial  self-confidence  and  irresistible  self-assertion,  had 
assumed  in  the  popular  mind,  as  well  as  in  the  Congress, 
the  part  of  the  leading  representative  of  these  policies. 
He  had  the  advantage  or  the  disadvantage  of  that, 
whichever  it  might  prove  to  be. 

And  lastly,  Jackson,  the  noblest  Roman  of  them  all ; 
ignorant  and  irascible  indeed,  but  virtuous,  brave,  and 
patriotic  beyond  any  cavil  or  question;  Andrew 
faithful  and  devoted  in  his  domestic  life,  Jackson- 
absolutely  unapproachable  by  pecuniary  inducements  ; 
the  best  of  friends  and  the  most  implacable  of  enemies  ; 
quick,  hasty  in  forming  his  judgments  and  tenacious 
beyond  expression  in  holding  to  them  ;  prone  to  elevate 
every  whim  and  impulse  to  a  behest  of  conscience  ;  ear 
nest,  terrible  in  the  inflexibility  of  his  purposes  ;  excited 
by  opposition  to  an  ever-increasing  degree  of  determina 
tion  ;  unflinching  and  recklessly  daring  in  the  perform 
ance  of  what  he  felt  to  be  his  duty ;  restless  under  the 
legal  restraints  which  might  appear  to  hinder  him  in 
the  discharge  of  duty  and  the  accomplishment  of  any 
great  enterprise  intrusted  to  him ;  hostile  to  all  gradations 
of  power  and  privilege,  and  inclined  to  break  through 
any  official  net-work  interposed  between  himself  and  the 
rank  and  file  subject  to  his  command  ;  a  great  soldier, 
and  yet  a  man  of  the  people  ;  the  military  hero  of  the 
country  and  a  martyr  to  the  persecutions  of  the  poli- 


136  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ticians — here  were  certainly  qualities  calculated  to  rouse 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  masses,  if  not  of  the  classes.     He 
was  now  fifty-seven  years  of  age,  and  was  not  in  strong 
health.     He  had  shown  no  qualities  of  statesmanship, 
although  he  had  been  twice  a  member  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  and  was  at  the  moment  holding  that 
most  advantageous  position  for  a  display  of  civic  talent ; 
but  he  had  the  fortune  to  live  at  a  time  and  in  a  coun 
try  when  and  where  the  lower  strata  of  society  were  just 
coming  to  a  full  participation  in  political  power,  and 
when  and  where  high  qualifications  simply  to  discharge 
/  the  duties  of  an  office  were  beginning  to  be  regarded  by 
I  the  majority  of  the  people  as  disqualifications  for  hold- 
l  ing  the  office. 

These  were  by  no  means  all  of  the  great  characters 
from  among  whom  the  nation  had  its  choice  in  1824, 
but  they  were  unquestionably  the  first  on  the  list.  Dif 
ferent  as  they  were  in  personal  qualities,  they  were  not 
yet  far  apart  in  political  opinions.  Crawford  leaned 
more  toward  "States'-rights"  than  the  others.  Clay 
was  more  pronounced  in  the  opposite  direction.  While 
Jackson  was  rather  more  uncommitted. 

Webster  was  not  put  forward  by  anybody,  and  did  not 

offer  himself  as  a  candidate.     Clay  was  nominated  by  the 

The  nomina-  legislature  of  Kentucky.    Jackson  was  nomi- 

identiaf  cKdi-  nated  b.Y  tne  legislature  of  Tennessee,  and  by 

dates  in  1824.    ^wo  Pennsylvania  conventions.    While  Adams 

had  the  advantage  of  the  precedent  which,  for  nearly 

a  quarter  of  a  century,  had  pointed  to  the  Secretary  of 

State  as  the  natural  successor  to  the  presidential  office. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  electors  did  not  choose 

Failure  of  any  one  of  the  four,  since  the  Constitution 

Secfthe0?^  requires  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of 

sident.  ^he  electors  for  a  choice.     Jackson  led  with 

ninety-nine  votes ;  Adams  was  next  with  eighty-four  ; 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION    OF   1824       137 

Crawford  followed  with  forty-one  ;  and  Clay  came  last 
with  thirty-seven. 

The  electoral  vote  was  distributed  territorially  as 
might  have  been  naturally  anticipated,,  except  in  two 
particulars.  These  were,  the  failure  of  Van  Territorial 
Buren  to  secure  the  electoral  vote  of  New  SfS'SSeS 
York  for  Crawford,  and  the  solid  vote  of  ralvote- 
Pennsylvania  and  South  Carolina  for  Jackson.  These 
facts  had  some  significance  in  connection  with  subse 
quent  developments,  and  require  a  little  explanation. 

New  York  was  one  of  the  Commonwealths  which,  down 
to  1824,  permitted  the  Legislature  to  choose  the  presiden 
tial  electors.  In  1823  the  Legislature  was  still 
under  the  control  of  Van  Buren  and  his  col-  in  the  Election 
leagues  in  the  "  Regency,"  the  Albany  ma 
chine,  and  had  the  election  taken  place  in  1823  he 
could  doubtless  have  delivered  the  electoral  vote  entire  to 
Crawford.  But  one  of  Jackson's  shrewdest  supporters, 
probably  Clinton,  started  the  scheme  for  transferring 
the  choice  of  the  electors  from  the  Legislature  to  the 
voters.  This,  if  successful,  would  destroy  the  control 
of  the  " Regency"  over  the  electoral  vote.  The  opposi 
tion  of  the  "Regency"  to  the  bill,  when  it  appeared  in 
the  Legislature,  caused  its  rejection  by  that  body ;  but 
the  popular  indignation  was  roused  to  such  a  pitch 
against  the  "Regency"  and  its  adherents  in  the  Legisla 
ture,  in  consequence  of  this  act,  that,  in  the  Common 
wealth  elections  of  1824,  the  "Regency"  party  was 
driven  from  power,  and  the  new  Legislature  chose  elec 
tors  who  cast  the  electoral  vote  of  the  Commonwealth 
chiefly  for  Adams,  as  the  Northern  candidate. 

The  fact  that  South  Carolina  cast  her  electoral  vote 
for  Jackson  instead  of  for  Crawford  is  good  evidence 
that  there  was  still  no  question  of  "States'  rights"  ver 
sus -the  powers  of  the  Union  at  issue,  or  that  South 


138  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

Carolina  was  still  nationally  disposed  ;  and  that,  either 
there  was  no  tariff  question  at  issue,  or  South  Caro- 
south  caro-  }™&  had  not  yet  clearly  discovered  the 
Eiectioi/of  hostility  of  the  tariff  to  her  interests,  or 
1824.  ghg  Believed  Jackson  to  be  opposed  to  the 

tariff. 

Jackson,  or  rather  his  manager,  William  B.  Lewis,  a 
most  astute  politician,  had  written  a  letter  to  a  Dr. 
Coleman,  of  Warrenton,  Va.,  upon  the  subject  of 
the  tariff.  The  letter  was  ostensibly  a  reply  to  one  from 
Dr.  Coleman,  inquiring  of  Jackson  his  views  upon  this 
question.  Very  probably,  however,  Dr.  Coleman's  let 
ter  was  also  dictated  by  Mr.  Lewis.  Jackson's  reply 
contained  nothing  definite  in  regard  to  the  subject.  It 
was  a  first-class  political  document,  that  is,  it  was  a 
document  which  could  be  interpreted  to  mean  anything 
which  might  be  made  necessary  or  desirable  by  time, 
place,  and  circumstances.  In  a  word,  Lewis  had  made 
for  Jackson  a  sort  of  tabula  rasa  record  on  the  subject 
of  the  tariff.  In  such  a  state  of  things  it  is  certainly 
reasonable  to  ascribe  South  Carolina's  preference  for 
Jackson  to  the  facts  that  he  claimed  to  be  her  son 
by  birth,  and  that  Calhoun,  rightly  discerning  Jackson 
to  be  the  coming  man,  withdrew  from  the  race  for  the 
presidency,  and  was  regarded  as  running  for  the  vice- 
presidency  on  the  Jackson  ticket. 

It  is  somewhat  more  difficult  to  account  for  the  atti 

tude  of  Pennsylvania.     We  are  now  so  accustomed  to 

consider  Pennsylvania  the  "  tariff  State  "par 

Pennsylva-  -,,  ,-1      ,    .,    •      -i-no       -i,  •  /» 

niaintheEiec-  excellence,  that  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  a 

tionof  1824. 


deed,  in  1824,  for  the  tariff,  but  her  interests  had  not 
then  become  so  completely  linked  together  with  it  as 
after  1840.  In  1824  her  vast  beds  of  anthracite  had  not 
been  applied  to  the  preparation  of  her  iron  ores,  in  fact 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION   OF   1824        139 

had  hardly  been  discovered.  Pennsylvania  west  of  the 
Alleghanies  was  then  an  agricultural  country,,  and  was 
filled  with  a  population  intensely  democratic  and  almost 
lawless.  So  far  as  they  had  any  political  science  it  was 
based  upon  the  most  radical  postulates  of  the  French 
philosophy.  The  principal  "  plank  "  of  the  platform  of 
the  Harrisburg  Convention  of  March  4th,  1824,  which 
nominated  Jackson,  read  as  follows  :  "  This  artificial  sys 
tem  of  cabinet  succession  to  the  presidency  is  little  less 
dangerous  and  anti-republican  than  the  hereditary  mon 
archies  of  Europe.  If  a  link  in  this  chain  of  successive 
secretary  dynasties  be  not  broken  now,  then  may  we  be 
fettered  by  it  forever.  Andrew  Jackson  comes  pure, 
untrammelled,  and  unpledged  from  the  people."  Ad 
ams,  Crawford,  and  Calhoun  were  then  members  of 
President  Monroe's  cabinet,  and  Clay  was  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives.  Jackson  alone  of  all  the 
candidates  seemed  to  possess  the  qualifications  required 
by  the  Harrisburg  doctrine.  While  this  may  explain 
the  attachment  of  the  Pennsylvania  Republicans  to 
Jackson,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  remnant  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Federalists  were  also  for  him.  In  1816 
Jackson  had  written  some  letters  to  President  Mon 
roe  advising  him  not  to  ignore  the  Federalists  in  his 
appointments  to  office,  but  to  unite  the  country  by 
showing  himself  superior  to  the  distinctions  of  party 
in  his  Administration.  These  letters  were  now  drawn 
forth  and  published  by  Jackson's  manager,  and  the  in 
ference  which  they  conveyed  was  that  Jackson  would 
follow  this  policy,  in  case  he  should  be  chosen  to  the 
presidency.  Even  Webster  was  inclined  to  him,  and 
Mrs.  Webster  was  entirely  won  by  his  gallantry.  Jack 
son  in  the  r61e  of  a  fascinating  gentleman  and  a  popular 
ladies'  man  is  hardly  the  usual  character  under  which 
the  imagination  of  this  generation  pictures  him.  It  is, 


140  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

nevertheless,  strictly  true  that  the  "Old Hero"  knew 
how  to  make  himself  very  acceptable  to  the  ladies.  Penn 
sylvania  was,  chiefly,  by  this  conjunction  of  influences, 
carried  for  Jackson  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 

The  failure  of  the  electors  to  give  a  majority  to  any 
one  of  the  candidates  threw  the  election  into  the  House 
The  Election  of  Eepresentatives,  which  is  empowered  by 
5  ^preseih  the  Constitution  to  choose,  in  such  a  case, 
tatives.  one  Of  the  three  who  shall  have  received  the 

highest  number  of  electoral  votes. 

From  the  day  when  it  became  known  that  the  new 
President  must  be  chosen  in  this  manner  to  the  day  of 
the  election  by  the  House,  that  is,  from  about 
of011Lma8itS-  the  middle  of  December  to  the  ninth  day  of 
February,  the  politicians  in  Washington 
were  "  laying  pipe,"  "  pulling  wires,"  and  "  making 
deals."  It  soon  became  manifest  that  Clay,  while  he 
could  not  be  chosen  himself,  since  he  could  not  be 
legally  voted  for,  was  the  master  of  the  situation.  So 
great  was  his  popularity  with  the  House  that,  it  is  al 
most  certain,  he  would  have  been  chosen  to  the  great 
office  himself  had  he  been  among  the  three  having  the 
highest  number  of  electoral  votes.  Everybody  rea 
soned,  therefore,  that  not  only  the  Eepresentatives  from 
the  Commonwealths  which  had  given  their  electoral 
votes  to  Clay  would  follow  his  lead  in  voting  in  the 
House,  but  that  many  others  from  other  Commonwealths 
would  act  under  inspiration  from  him.  After  a  good 
deal  of  talk  among  the  members  of  the  House  and  the 
politicians  generally  as  to  whether  the  members  were 
bound  to  vote  as  the  electors  from  their  respective  Com 
monwealths  had  voted,  and  as  to  whether  the  legislat 
ures  of  the  respective  Commonwealths  possessed  any 
power  to  instruct  the  members  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  from  the  several  Commonwealths  in  regard  to 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION    OF   1824       141 

the  casting  of  their  votes,  the  opinion  finally  prevailed 
that  each  Representative  was  entirely  free  to  vote  ac 
cording  to  his  own  judgment  and  preference ;  and  that 
meant  that  the  popular  and  persuasive  Speaker  would 
be  able  to  carry  enough  votes  with  him  to  elect  the  can 
didate  upon  whom  his  favor  might  fall. 

Propositions  were  made  to  him  from  the  friends  of 
the  different  candidates,  but  he  held  them  all  at  arm's 
length.  It  might  have  been  easily  foreseen  Clay,8  eup. 
that  he  would  support  Adams.  Crawford  ^^^3 
was  a  man  of  exhausted  powers,  unfit  physi-  charge  of  bar- 
cally  and  mentally  to  discharge  the  duties  of  ruption. 
the  great  office.  Jackson  was  only  a  military  chieftain, 
according  to  Clay's  view  a  very  dangerous  character  for 
the  presidency.  There  remained  only  Adams,  probably 
the  best-fitted  man  in  the  country  for  the  office.  It  was 
generally  felt,  for  several  days  before  the  election,  that 
these  considerations  would  determine  Clay's  course  of 
action.  There  were  those,  however,  who  were  ready  to 
ascribe  Clay's  supposed  attitude  to  other,  and  more 
selfish,  motives.  An  insignificant  member  from  Penn 
sylvania,  Kremer  by  name,  gave  it  out  in  public  print 
that  there  was  a  bargain  between  Adams  and  Clay,  ac 
cording  to  which  Clay  was  to  support  Adams,  and  to 
receive  in  return  the  Secretaryship  of  State.  This 
happened  on  January  28th,  1825,  just  after  the  dele 
gations  from  Ohio  and  Kentucky  in  the  House  had 
declared  their  intention  of  supporting  Adams.  The 
small  mind  of  Kremer  could  not  conceive  of  this  atti 
tude  on  the  part  of  Clay  save  from  the  point  of  view  of 
selfish  interests.  Clay  immediately  called  for  an  inves 
tigation  of  the  charge  by  the  House,  but  Kremer  sneaked 
out  of  it. 

On  February  9th,   1825,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress 
met  in  joint  assembly  to  count  the  electoral  vote.     It 


142  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

was  immediately  found  that  no  candidate  had  a  ma 
jority,  and  that,  therefore,  the  choice  lay  with  the 
House.  The  House,  on  the  same  day,  and 
on  the  first  ballot,  elected  Adams.  The  del- 
feePr?s°?netaf'  egations  from  thirteen  of  the  twenty-four 
tives-  Commonwealths  voted  for  him.  The  dele 

gations  from  seven  voted  for  Jackson  ;  and  those  from 
four  for  Crawford.  Adams  received  the  votes  of  the 
delegations  from  all  of  the  Commonwealths  which  had 
given  their  electoral  votes,  or  the  majority  of  their  elec 
toral  votes,  to  himself  and  to  Clay,  and  from  three  of 
the  Commonwealths  which  had  given  the  majority  of 
their  electoral  vote  to  Jackson. 

The  twelfth  day  of  February,  1825,  is  the  date  in  Mr. 
Adams's  diary  under  which  he  recorded  his  offer  of  the 
Secretaryship  of  State  to  Mr.  Clay.  We  find 
in  the  diary,  for  the  day  before  this,  an  ac 
count  of  a  visit  from  a  Mr.  G.  Sullivan,  who 
told  Mr.  Adams  "that  the  Calhounites  said  that  if  Mr. 
Clay  should  be  appointed  Secretary  of  State,  a  deter 
mined  opposition  to  the  administration  would  be  organ 
ized  from  the  outset  ;  that  the  opposition  would  use  the 
name  of  General  Jackson  as  its  head  ;  and  that  the  admin 
istration  would  be  supported  only  by  the  New  England 
States  —  New  York  being  doubtful,  the  West  much 
divided,  and  strongly  favoring  Jackson  as  a  Western 
man,  Virginia  already  in  opposition,  and  all  the  South 
decidedly  adverse/' 

Exactly  who  the  Calhounites  were  at  that  moment,  as 

distinct  from  the  followers  of  Adams  and  Clay,  is  dim- 

cult  to  determine,  since  all  the  electors  who 

thehOTgtniza-  voted  for  Adams  for  President  also  voted  for 


1:  Calhoun  for  Vice-President,  except  eight 
tion  party.  eiectors  f  rom  Connecticut  and  one  from  New 
Hampshire,  and  of  the  thirty-seven  electors  who  voted 


THE   PRESIDENTIAL   ELECTION   OF   1824       143 

for  Clay,  at  least  seven  of  them  voted  also  for  Calhoun. 
It  was  Crawford's  supporters  who  had  opposed  Calhoun 
for  the  second  place,  not  one  of  them  having  voted  for 
him.  This  declaration  made  by  Mr.  Sullivan  meant, 
therefore,,  that  Jackson's  friends  were  going  to  organize 
an  opposition  party  to  the  Adams-Clay  Administration 
and  that  the  Vice-President  was  going  to  cast  his  lot 
with  them. 

This  was  certainly  a  threat  of  danger,  but  Adams  was 
not  the  man  to  be  frightened  from  the  course  which  he 
had  chosen  as  just  and  politic.  He  immediately  offered 
the  first  position  in  the  cabinet  to  Clay,  and,  after  some 
six  days  of  reflection  and  of  consultation  with  friends, 
Clay  accepted. 

No  sufficient  evidence  has  ever  been  produced  to  con 
vince  a  judicial  mind  that  Adams  and  Clay  had  come  to 
any  understanding  in  regard  to  this  matter 
either  before  Clay  announced  publicly  that  bJweenarciay 
he  should  support  Adams,  or  afterward.  But  meV^uTpi- 
men  generally  do  not  have  judicial  minds.  cion' 
"Diffused  distrust  and  indiscriminate  suspicion"  mark 
the  attitude  of  the  vulgar  mind  toward  personages  in 
high  station.  Politicians  know  only  too  well  that  this 
is  one  of  the  most  potent  forces  which  can  be  called  into 
play,  and  they  know  only  too  well  how  to  take  advan 
tage  of  it.  Conscious  as  both  Adams  and  Clay  doubt 
less  were  of  their  own  rectitude,  they  did  not  sufficiently 
appreciate  the  proneness  of  the  masses  to  believe  in  the 
corruption  of  their  superiors.  Neither  did  they  cor 
rectly  appreciate  the  ungenerous  and  uncandid  spirit  of 
the  leaders  among  their  opponents  in  clinging  to  this 
charge,  and  reiterating  it,  after  they  had  failed  to  sub 
stantiate  it  by  any  credible  evidence.  They  certainly 
did  not  comprehend  that  they  had  given  their  opponents 
a  shibboleth  which  would  lead  them  to  certain  victory. 


144  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The   opposition   began   at   once  their  attack  in  the 

Senate  under  the  issue  of  Clay's  appointment.     Fifteen 

clay's  nomi-  °^    ^IQ   ^orty  -  one   Senators    present   voted 

nation  to  the  against  it.     Among  the  fifteen  was  Jackson, 

Secretaryehi  p       & 

of  state  in  the  who,  upon  his  way,  a  few  days  later,  from 
Washington  to  his  home  in  Tennessee,  re 
peated  and  re-enlivened  the  charge  of  "  bargain  and  cor 
ruption."  It  is  more  than  probable  that  Jackson  be 
lieved  in  it  himself.  He  was  so  convinced  of  his  own 
honesty  that  he  believed  every  one  who  differed  with 
him  to  be  dishonest.  This  is  a  trait  of  character  fre 
quently  met  with,  and  it  is  a  most  dangerous  force  with 
which  to  deal.  The  "  Old  Hero  "  possessed  it  in  an 
extraordinary  degree. 

Despite  the  fact  that  there  were  no  material  differ 
ences  in  political  principles,  and  the  further  fact  that 
Adams  retained  Monroe's  cabinet  so  far  as 

The  compo 
sition  of  the   he  could,  appointing  new  members  only  to 

new   Anti-ad-  .    ,,          .      ,       ..  .     J 

ministration  the  positions  made  vacant  therein  by  his  own 
and  Calhoun's  promotion  to  the  presidency 
and  the  vice-presidency,  and  by  Crawford's  refusal  to  ac 
cept  the  Treasury  for  another  term,  it  was  now  per 
fectly  evident  that  Jackson,  Calhoun,  and  Crawford, 
with  their  followers,  were  determined  upon  an  organized 
opposition  to  the  Adams-Clay  Administration,  no  mat 
ter  what  principles  and  policies  that  Administration 
should  follow  ;  that  Jackson  would,  on  account  of  his 
popularity  with  the  masses,  be  put  forward  as  the  head 
of  the  new  party  ;  and  that  the  cry  of  "  bargain  and 
corruption  "  between  the  President  and  the  chief  officer 
of  his  Administration,  for  robbing  the  "  Old  Hero"  of 
his  rights  and  the  people  of  their  choice,  was  to  be  their 
watchword  in  the  conflict. 


CHAPTEE  VII. 

THE   DIVISION  OF  THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY 

Personal  Differences,  and  Party  Division— Military  Confederation 
of  the  Spanish- American  States  —  Invitation  to  the  United 
States  to  send  Representatives  to  the  Congress  at  Panama — The 
Acceptance  of  the  Invitation — Opposition  in  the  Senate  to  the 
sending  of  Representatives  to  Panama — Popular  Sympathy  in 
the  United  States  for  the  South  -  American  States— The 
President's  Nominations  Confirmed— The  Haytian  Question 
at  the  Congress  —  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico— Real  Nature  of  the 
Opposition  to  the  Panama  Mission— The  Failure  of  the  Panama 
Congress — Adams  on  Internal  Improvements  in  his  Message  of 
December  6th,  1825 — Van  Buren's  Resolution  against  Internal 
Improvements — The  Practices  of  the  Adams  Administration  in 
respect  to  Internal  Improvements — The  Chief  Practical  Diffi 
culty  in  the  way  of  a  National  System  of  Internal  Improve 
ments—The  Tariff  of  1824  a  Failure— The  Tariff  Bill  of  1827— 
Development  of  the  Industrial  Antithesis  between  the  North 
and  the  South  —  Hostility  to  the  Measure  in  South  Carolina — 
The  Tariff  of  1828— The  Character  of  the  Bill  as  Reflected  in 
the  Analysis  of  the  Vote  Upon  It— The  Tariff  of  1828  not  a 
Complete  Party  Measure — The  Presidential  Campaign  of  1828 
still  Dominated  by  Personal  Considerations — Election  of  Jack 
son — Advent  of  the  Parvenus — Foreign  Affairs  under  Jackson's 
Administration — The  Democratic  Party  and  its  Divisions. 

IN"  the  absence  of  any   well-defined  differences  in 
political  opinions,  and  in  the  state  of  determined  per- 
10 


146  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

sonal  hostility  between   the   leaders  developed  by  the 

election  of  1824,  the  fact  that  Adams  and  Clay  took 

broad  national  views,  placed  a  liberal  construc- 

ferences,  and  tion  upon  the  Constitution,  and  insisted  upon 

party  division.      .  *  , 

the  employment  of  all  the  powers  vested  by 
it  in  the  general  Government  to  the  highest  point  of 
their  usefulness  in  the  promotion  of  the  general  wel 
fare,  had  the  natural  effect  of  forcing  the  opposition 
upon  the  opposite  grounds,  and,  therefore,  tended  to 
make  a  particularistic  party,  the  so-called  "  States' 
rights "  party,  out  of  the  Jackson-Calhoun-Crawford 
faction. 

One  of  the  most  patent  indications  of  the  correctness 
of  the  proposition  that  the  opposition  in  principle  be 
tween  the  National  Republican  party  and  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  as  the  Administrationists  and  the  Anti-ad- 
ministrationists  were  soon  termed,  took  its  rise  largely 
in  the  personal  hostility  of  the  leaders,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  history  of  the  chief  question  of  the  foreign  rela 
tions  with  which  the  Adams  Administration  had  to  deal 
in  the  years  1825  and  1826. 

The  Spanish  Americans  had  taken  the  cautious  utter 
ances  of  President  Monroe,  in  his  December  message  of 
s  anish-  1823, for  much  more  than  he  meant  them. 
American  in-  They  thought,  or  prof  essed  to  think,  that  the 

terpretations  J  6      '         r  > 

of  "the  Mon-  Government    had    pledged    itself    to    meet 

roe  Doctrine."  .     ,  ,.  *    jr        * -n •    j»     T»  j> 

any  intervention  of  the  Allied  Powers  of 
Europe  in  American  affairs  by  any  resistance  necessary 
to  defeat  it.  They  were  also  acquainted  with  the  fact 
that  both  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Clay  were  more  pro 
nounced  than  President  Monroe  in  favor  of  going  to 
the  support  of  the  new  republics  of  South  and  Middle 
America.  Naturally  then,  when  these  two  men  came  to 
the  head  of  the  Government,  on  March  4th,  1825,  the 
Spanish  Americans  felt  encouraged  to  expect  some  sub- 


THE   DIVISION   OF   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY      147 

stantial  aid  from  the  United  States  in  the  further  course 
of  their  struggle  with  Spain  and  her  possible  allies. 

Already   in   the   summer   of   1822   the    Republic   of 
Colombia  had  initiated  the  plan  of  a  Confederation  of 
the  Spanish-  American  states.      By  a  treaty     Militar 
with  Peru,  bearing  date  of  July  12th,  1823,   confederation 

.,,;?,.,.        ,    ..         J  ,        of  the   Span- 

by  another  with  Chili  ot  the  same  date,  by 


another  with  the  United  Provinces  of  Cen 
tral  America,  of  April  12th,  1825,  and  by  another  with 
Mexico,  of  September  20th,  1825,  the  Eepublicof  Colom 
bia  had  established  a  military  confederation  between 
these  five  states,  and  had  pledged  them  to  send  plenipo 
tentiaries  to  a  "  general  assembly  of  American  states 
.  .  .  with  the  charge  of  cementing,  in  the  most  solid 
and  stable  manner,  the  intimate  relations  which  ought 
to  exist  between  all  and  every  one  of  them."  Accord 
ing  to  this  agreement  the  assembly  of  plenipotentiaries 
was  to  serve  as  a  council  in  conflicts,  as  a  rallying-point 
in  common  dangers,  as  a  faithful  interpreter  of  treaties 
between  their  respective  states,  and  as  an  umpire  and 
conciliator  in  the  disputes  and  differences  which  might 
arise  between  their  respective  states. 

During  the  spring  of  the  year  1825  the  Ministers  of 
Colombia  and  Mexico  sought  Mr.  Clay,  and  communi 
cated  to  him  the  desires  of  their  respective     Inyit  tio 
governments  to  have  the  United  States  send  the  United 

,  .  .  States  to  send 

representatives   to   this   proposed   congress  ;  representa- 

\  ,     ,.  .    .          ,,       „  -,  |    .       .,    ,  .  tives    to    the 

but  before  giving  the  formal  invitation  they  congress  at 
asked  to  know  if  it  would  be  accepted.  They  l 
stated  to  Mr.  Clay  that  they  did  not  expect  the  United 
States  to  abandon  the  attitude  of  neutrality,  or  to  take 
part  in  those  deliberations  of  the  congress  which  might 
relate  to  the  prosecution  of  the  existing  war. 

Clay's  genial  spirit  was  much  excited  by  the  grand 
prospect  of  a  league  of  the  American  states  under  the 


148  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

hegemony  of  the  United  States.  It  satisfied  the  plan 
of  his  daring  imagination.  It  filled  the  bounds  of  his 
far-reaching  vision.  He  immediately  communicated  the 
propositions  of  the  two  ministers,  Mr.  Salazar  and  Mr. 
Obregon,  to  President  Adams,  and  urged  the  President 
to  allow  him  to  give  them  the  assurance  that  the  in 
vitation  to  send  representatives  to  the  congress,  to  be 
held  the  following  October  at  Panama,  would  be  accept- 

The  Presi-  e&  DJ  the  United  States.  The  President, 
ff  to  accept  however,  proceeded  rather  cautiously.  He 
the  invitation.  was^  indeed,  very  friendly  in  his  feelings 
toward  the  Spanish-American  states,  and  was  ready 
to  aid  their  cause  in  any  manner  consistent  with  the 
duties  of  a  neutral.  But  he  had  a  calmer  way  of 
regarding  things  than  his  brilliant  Secretary  of  State, 
and,  moreover,  upon  him  rested  the  ultimate  responsi 
bility.  He  required  Mr.  Clay  to  procure  from  Messrs. 
Salazar  and  Obregon  some  information  in  regard  to  the 
subjects  which  would  be  considered  by  the  congress,  the 
nature  and  form  of  the  powers  to  be  given  to  the  diplo 
matic  agents  which  were  to  compose  it,  and  the  mode  of 
its  organization  and  procedure.  At  the  same  time  he 
allowed  Mr.  Clay  to  encourage  them  to  believe  that,  if 
satisfactory  answers  should  be  returned  to  these  in 
quiries,  their  invitation  would  be  accepted.  He  also 
caused  Mr.  Clay  to  warn  them  that  the  United  States 
could  not  become  a  party  to  the  existing  war  with  Spain, 
or  give  any  counsel  in  regard  to  its  further  prosecu 
tion. 

The  answers  to  these  inquiries  were  not  received  until 
the  following  November,  and  in  Mr.  Clay's  letter  ac- 

The  acce  t-  knowledging  their  receipt,  they  were  said 
anceonhem-  to  be  not  entirely  satisfactory  to  the  Presi 
dent.  The  ministers  were  informed,  how 
ever,  that  the  President  had  resolved  to  send  commis- 


THE   DIVISION    OF   THE   REPUBLICAN    PARTY      149 

sioners  to  the  congress  at  Panama,  in  case  the  Senate, 
which  was  to  assemble  in  a  few  days,  should  assent  to 
it ;  but  that  the  commissioners  would  not  be  empowered 
to  do  or  say  anything  which  would  compromise  the  neu 
trality  of  the  United  States. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  replies  from  the  Governments 
of  Colombia  and  Mexico  to  President  Adams's  questions 
would  have  been  regarded  as  highly  unsatis 
factory  by  any  judicious  mind,  entirely  un-  dent  too  hasty 
committed ;  for,  while  they  left  the  Presi-  a 
dent's  second  and  third  questions  entirely  unanswered, 
they  suggested  a  joint  resistance  of  all  the  American 
states  to  European  interference  in  American  affairs, 
and  to  any  further  European  colonization  upon  the 
American  continents,  as  the  principal  subjects  in  the 
discussion  and  determination  of  which  the  United  States 
would  be  expected  to  take  part.  They  referred  to  the 
fact  that  President  Monroe  in  his  noted  message  had 
characterized  these  things  as  being  matters  of  common 
interest  to  both  North  and  South  America. 

Here  was  certainly  a  fine  opportunity  for  all  sorts  of 
entanglements ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  astonishing  that, 
when  the  subject  was  brought  before  the  opposition 
Senate  of  the  United  States  by  the  Presi- 
dent's  message  of  December  26th,  1825,  ask- 
ing  the  Senate  to  approve  his  nominations  of  ma- 
Richard  0.  Anderson  and  John  Sergeant  as  ministers 
from  the  United  States  to  the  "Assembly  of  American 
Nations  at  Panama,"  a  very  strong  opposition  to  the  pro 
ject  was  developed  in  that  body.  The  Senate  referred 
the  nominations  to  a  committee,  and  called  for  the 
diplomatic  correspondence  and  other  papers  relating  to 
the  subject,  which,  upon  examination,  revealed  the  facts 
briefly  stated  above. 

The  committee,  which  was  the  regular  committee  on 


150  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Foreign  Relations,  reported  against  the  nominations,  or 
rather  against  the  policy  of  having  representatives  at 
the  congress  at  all,  on  the  ground  that  it  might  com 
promise  the  neutrality  of  the  United  States,  and  involve 
the  United  States  in  entangling  connections  with  for 
eign  powers.  This  report  was  made  to  the  Senate  on 
January  16th,  1826.  The  Senate  debated,  in  secret  ses 
sion,  the  questions  involved  in  the  report  during  the  lat 
ter  half  of  February  and  the  first  half  of  March.  The 
view  held  by  those  who  favored  the  report  was  that  the 
Panama  congress  was  to  have  the  character  of  a  mili 
tary  confederation,  and  that  membership  in  it  would  be 
inconsistent  with  a  status  of  neutrality  toward  Spain 
and  her  revolting  American  colonies.  The  view  of 
those  who  opposed  the  report  and  desired  to  send  repre 
sentatives  to  the  congress  was,  that  the  congress  was 
only  a  meeting,  in  one  place,  of  the  plenipotentiaries  of 
the  diiferent  states  for  an  interchange  of  opinions,  and 
would  not  necessarily  alter  the  attitude  of  any  of  the 
powers  taking  part  in  it  upon  any  subject,  or  toward 
any  other  power. 

The   strong  sympathy  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  for  the  cause  of  independence  in  Middle  and  South 

Popular  America  really  violated  the  spirit  of  neutral - 
th^Unlte'd  ity,  and  the  influence  of  this  sympathy  upon 
lou£- AmlS  tne  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress 
was  very  disturbing  to  a  cool  and  judicial 
consideration  of  the  attitude  which  the  Government 
should  preserve  in  the  matter  of  the  Panama  mission. 

The  friends  of  the  mission  at  last  won  the  day  by  a 
vote   of  twenty-four   to   nineteen.      Fifteen   Northern 

The   Presi-   Senators  voted  to  send  representatives  to  the 
Sons  So1?-  congress,  and  seven  voted  against  doing  so. 
Nine  Southern  Senators  voted  to  send  repre 
sentatives,  and   twelve   voted  against  doing  so.     This 


THE   DIVISION   OF   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY      151 

vote  hardly  sustains  the  claim  of  certain  of  the  his 
torians,  that  the  slavery  interest  was  the  primal  cause 
of  the  opposition  to  the  Panama  mission.  NO  in  flu - 
One  of  the  most  eminent  among  these  says  ^  perceptl- 
that  the  historical  significance  of  the  contest 
over  the  question  was  that  slavery  threw  inations- 
aside  its  municipal  character,  its  character  as  a  Common 
wealth  institution,  and  demanded  to  prescribe  both  the 
internal  and  external  policies  of  the  nation.  This 
sounds  dramatic,  but  if  it  means,  as  it  appears  to  mean, 
that  when,  in  a  federal  system  of  government,  any  in 
terest  or  institution  regulated  by  Commonwealth  law 
asks  protection  from  the  general  Government  against 
foreign  influence  and  interference  it  thereby  asserts 
command  over  the  nation,  it  is  a  proposition  which  also 
sounds  decidedly  outre  to  an  American  lawyer.  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  imposed  the  interna 
tional  protection  of  all  such  interests  and  institutions 
upon  the  general  Government  when  it  reserved  such  in 
terests  and  institutions  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Com 
monwealths  and  gave  the  general  Government  alone 
international  standing.  When,  then,  such  interests  and 
institutions  claim  that  protection,  they  are  only  asking 
for  a  right  guaranteed  to  them  by  the  Constitution,  and 
are  by  no  means  asserting  an  authority  over  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  country. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Salazar  said  in  his  communication 
something  about  the  status  of  Hayti  being  a  subject  of 
deliberation  for  the  congress.  It  was  also  The  Hay- 
true  that  Hayti  had  been  for  thirty  years  in  jj*^"68^ 
a  state  of  chronic  insurrection  and  revolution,  sres8- 
and  that  the  former  negro  slave  population  had,  by  the 
assassination  of  their  former  masters  and  mistresses, 
freed  themselves  from  bondage,  taken  possession  of  the 
country,  and  were  reducing  it  to  barbarism  at  a  rapid 


152  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

pace.  It  is  furthermore  true  that  the  slaveholders  in 
the  United  States  did  not  wish  their  own  homes  to  be 
made  the  scenes  of  any  such  ruin  and  savagery,  or  them 
selves  or  their  families  to  be  made  subject  to  any  such 
fate  ;  and,  it  may  be  confidently  hazarded,  that  no  North 
erner,  at  that  day,  viewed  such  possibilities  with  any 
thing  but  aversion  and  horror.  It  required  a  quarter  of 
a  century  of  radical  abolition  recklessness,  the  blunder- 
crime  of  secession,  and  the  desperation  of  long-contin 
ued,  and  at  first  unsuccessful,  war,  to  make  the  men  of 
the  North  regard  without  sympathy  such  dangers  to  their 
Southern  brethren.  The  North  and  the  South  simply 
could  not  have  divided,  at  that  time,  upon  the  question 
of  the  relation  to  Hayti.  There  was  only  one  view  upon 
that  subject,  and  that  was  that  the  example  and  influ 
ence  of  Hayti  must  be  held  far  away  from  these  shores. 
This  could  have  been  accomplished,  however,  as  well  by 
attending  the  congress  as  by  staying  away,  perhaps  bet 
ter.  At  least,  the  Haytian  question  was  no  chief  ground 
of  opposition  to  the  mission,  and  certainly  no  chief 
ground  in  favor  of  the  mission. 

It  is  more  probable  that  one  of  the  reasons  which 
moved  President  Adams  and  Mr.  Clay  to  urge  attend- 
cuba  and  ance  upon  the  congress  was  to  be  in  a  posi- 
Porto  Rico.  £jon  to  restrain  the  Spanish- American  states 
from  attempting  to  seize  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.  During 
the  latter  half  of  the  year  1825,  at  the  very  moment  when 
the  Government  was  communicating  with  the  Spanish- 
American  states  in  regard  to  the  congress,  Mr.  Clay  was 
urging  the  Czar  of  Russia,  on  the  one  side,  to  exercise 
his  influence  upon  the  Spanish  court  for  the  cessation 
of  hostilities  on  the  part  of  Spain  against  the  revolting 
American  colonies,  on  the  ground  that  Spain  could 
never  resub jugate  them,  and  would  by  a  continuance  of 
hostilities  exasperate  them  and  excite  them  to  attack 


THE  DIVISION    OF   THE   EEPUBLICAN   PARTY      153 

Cuba  and  Porto  Kico  with  the  purpose  of  expelling  the 
Spanish  power  from  these  islands,  and  was  urging  the 
Spanish- American  states,  on  the  other  side,  to  refrain 
from  such  an  attack,  on  the  ground  that  if  they  did  at 
tempt  to  seize  these  islands  the  Czar  would  not  only 
cease  his  good  offices  with  the  Spanish  King  to  end  the 
war,  but  might  bring  the  entire  power  of  the  Holy  Al 
liance  to  the  aid  of  the  Spanish  King  for  the  resubjection 
of  his  former  American  colonies.  The  policy  of  Presi 
dent  Adams's  Administration  was  clearly  opposed  to  the 
occupation  of  Cuba  arid  Porto  Eico,  either  by  the  Span 
ish  Americans  or  by  any  European  state  other  than 
Spain  herself.  In  this  matter,  also,  the  Administration 
and  the  opposition  held  the  same  view. 

The  only  natural  explanations  of  the  determined  op 
position  to  the  Panama  mission  were,  thus,  either  the 
dread  of  embarrassing  entanglements  with 
the  Spanish- American  states,  and  the  conse-  of^he  n0appo- 
quent  compromise  of  the  status  of  neutrality  Panama0 miS 
toward  them  and  their  motherland,  or  the  sion< 
spirit  of  personal  hostility  to  the  Administration.  From 
the  merits  of  the  question  the  former  would  seem  the 
more  likely.  It  was  certainly,  to  any  candid  mind,  a 
sufficient  reason.  On  the  other  hand,  an  expression  ut 
tered  by  Mr.  Van  Buren  as  he  left  the  Senate  chamber, 
after  having  just  made  a  most  earnest  appeal  against 
the  mission  and  cast  his  vote  against  it,  would  indicate 
that  the  opposition  fought  the  Administration  in  this 
matter  from  factional  motives  purely.  He  is  reported 
to  have  said  :  "  They  have  beaten  us  by  a  few  votes,  af 
ter  a  hard  battle  ;  but  if  they  had  only  taken  the  other 
side  and  refused  the  mission,  we  should  have  had 
them." 

The  debate  continued  so  long,  however,  that  the  con 
gress  at  Panama  adjourned  to  Tacubaya  before  the  rep- 


154  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

resentatives  from  the  United  States  appeared.     Spain 
ceased  to  wage  war  against  her  former  colonies.     The 
Holy  Alliance  did  not  interfere.    The  Span- 
of  the  Panama  ish- American  states  suspended  their  opera 
tions  against  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.     Hayti 
remained  in  isolated  barbarism.      And  the  congress  of 
the  American  nations  never  reassembled. 

It  is  possible  that  the  jingo  policy  of  the  Administra 
tion  may  have  helped  to  produce  all  these  results. 
It  is  probable  that  the  same  results  would  have  followed 
had  the  Senate  refused  the  mission  to  Panama.  It  is 
certainly  most  fortunate  that  these  results  were  attained 
without  the  attendance  of  the  representatives  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  congress.  All  possible  en 
tanglements  were  thus  avoided,  while  the  purposes  of 
the  Administration,  in  so  far  at  least  as  they  subserved 
the  true  interests  of  the  country,,  were  substantially  ac 
complished. 

It  is  true  that  the  special  commercial  advantages 
which  Clay  had  hoped  for  were  not  secured,,  nor  his 
dream  of  an  American  Confederacy  under  the  protec 
torate  of  the  United  States  realized.  Neither  were  the 
President's  ideas  in  regard  to  methods  for  settling  mooted 
questions  of  international  relations,  nor  those  in  regard 
to  the  advancement  of  religious  liberty,  fulfilled.  But 
these  things  were  all  premature,  to  say  the  least,  and 
none  of  them  would,  probably,  have  been  helped  onward 
by  any  discussion  in  the  congress  of  the  American  na 
tions.  With  the  exception  of  the  United  States,  those 
nations  were  altogether  too  immature  to  deal  with  such 
problems  ;  and  the  United  States  itself  was  not  suf 
ficiently  consolidated  and  powerful  to  assume  the  duties 
of  instructor  and  guardian  over  them.  It  is  not  prob 
able  that  any  opportunity  for  doing  good  or  receiving 
good  was  lost  by  the  non-attendance  of  representatives 


THE   DIVISION    OF   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY      155 

from  the  United  States  upon  the  deliberations  of  the 
Panama  congress.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  both 
the  doing  and  the  suffering  of  injury  were  escaped. 

While  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  United 
States  to  the  other  states  upon  the  American  continents 
is  by  no  means  transitory,  the  question  of  the  Panama 
mission  was  so,  at  least  so  much  so  as  not  to  serve  well 
as  an  issue  for  the  division  of  the  Republican  party  into 
two  permanently  hostile  forces. 

The  question  of  internal  improvements  was  a  better 
issue,  from  this  point  of  view.  In  his  first  annual  mes 
sage  President  Adams  took  high  national  A  dams  on 
ground  upon  this  subject.  (Jle  seemed  to 
attribute  to  the  general  Government  un- 
limited  power  to  construct  roads  and  canals,  6th» 1825- 
establish  universities  and  observatories,  and  to  do  any 
and  every  thing  conducive  to  the  improvement  of  the 
people.  Clay  himself,  it  is  said,  was  a  little  staggered 
by  the  exceeding  broadness  of  Mr.  Adams's  ideas.  While 
Mr.  Van  Buren,  the  leader  of  the  opposition  in  the  Sen 
ate,  offered  a  resolution  in  that  body,  a  fort 
night  after  the  message,  which  declared  that 
Congress  did  not  possess  the  power  to  make 
roads  and  canals  within  the  respective  Com-  ment8' 
monwealths,  and  proposed  the  formation  of  an  amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution,  which  should  prescribe  the 
powers  that  the  general  Government  should  have  over 
the  subject  of  internal  improvements. 

Mr.  Adams  seems  to  have  yielded  before  the  opposi 
tion  in  this  matter,  and  to  have  thus  avoided 
making   it  a  further   issue.     In  his   subse-  tices  of   the 

T  r>        -i  -i  '          TAT./I  Adams    Ad- 

quent  messages  he  confined  himself  chiefly  to  ministration 
observations  upon  the  work  done  by  the  en-  intern?iectim- 
gineers  appointed  under  the  Congressional   Provements- 
Act  of  April  30th,   1824,  for  making  surveys,   plans, 


156  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

and  estimates  for  national  routes.  The  Administration 
and  Congress  simply  put  into  practice  the  Monroe  ideas 
upon  the  subject.  Money  was  appropriated  by  Congress 
for  the  construction  and  repair  of  roads,  and  was  expended 
under  the  supervision  of  the  President,  and  stock  was 
taken  by  the  Government  in  private  corporations,  or 
ganized  under  Commonwealth  law,  and  subject  to  Com 
monwealth  jurisdiction,  for  the  construction  of  canals  ; 
but  no  jurisdiction  and  no  administrative  powers  were 
exercised  or  asserted  by  the  general  Government  over 
such  improvements,  except,  perhaps,  the  power  of  emi 
nent  domain. 

The  opposition,  however,  which  had  been  excited  at 
first  by  Mr.  Adams's  proposition  to  make  a  large  ad 
vance  upon  Mr.  Monroe's  principles,  was  not  satisfied 
with  his  return  in  practice  to  those  principles.  They 
professed  to  entertain  the  fear  that  the  Administration 
had  a  settled  policy  of  encroachment  upon  the  reserved 
rights  and  powers  of  the  Commonwealths,  and  they  now 
began  to  watch  and  combat  the  movements  of  the  Ad 
ministration  chiefly  from  this  point  of  view.  This  at 
titude  must  not  yet,  however,  be  ascribed  wholly  or 
chiefly  to  the  conscious  influences  of  the  slavery  inter 
est.  Factional  hostility  to  the  Administration,  and  the 
general  settling  back  into  the  ' '  States'  rights  "  view  of 
the  Constitution,  which  manifests  itself  all  through  the 
history  of  the  United  States  as  a  reaction  from  the  ten 
sion  of  war  and  the  enthusiasm  of  strong  national  ex 
ertion,  did  more  to  determine  it  than  the  views  of  the 
slaveholders  in  regard  to  the  interests  of  their  peculiar 
institution. 

The  great  practical  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  subject 
was  in  making  such  determinations  as  to  the  national 
or  local  character  of  the  proposed  improvements  as 
would  be  satisfactory  to  the  mass  of  the  people..  Natu- 


THE   DIVISION   OF   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY      157 

rally  every  Congressman  considered  the  roads  of  his 
district  as  matters  of  national  concern  ;  and,  in  spite  of 
the  law  of  1824  vesting  in  the  President  The  chief 
and  his  board  of  engineers  the  laving  out  practical  diffi- 

.          culty  in   the 

oi  such  routes  as  the  President  might  decide  way  of  a  na- 

-.  -11,1  n        tional  system 

to  be  required  by  the  general  welfare,  the  of  internal  im- 

scramble  for  national  money  to  be  expended  pro 

for  local  purposes  increased  from  one  session  to  another. 

It  was  the  question  of  the  tariff  which  showed  more 
clearly  than  anything  else  the  influence  of  the  interests 
of  slavery  in  the  attitude  which  the  slaveholders  would 
finally  take  toward  the  industrial  policies  of  the  nation, 
and  which  would  contribute  more  than  anything  else  to 
the  division  of  the  Republican  party  from  the  point  of 
view  of  principle. 

The  great  purpose  of  the  Tariff  of  1824  was  to  give  the 
American  manufacturers  of  coarse  woollens  a  substan 
tial  control  of  the  home  markets.  In  two  The  Tarfff 
years  of  trial  this  result  had  not  been  real-  of  1824  a  fau- 
ized.  A  vast  amount  of  capital  had  been 
transferred  from  other  enterprises  to  build  new  woollen 
mills,  and  the  markets  were  so  glutted  with  their  fab 
rics  that  sale  for  them  could  only  be  found  by  virtually 
excluding  foreign  goods  of  the  same  material  and  grade. 
It  was  claimed  that  the  foreign  goods  were  sold  upon 
foreign  account,  and  not  by  bonaftde  American  mer 
chants,  and  that  the  goods  were  thus  undervalued  by 
the  fictitious  parties  to  the  importation,  and  the  duty 
thus  so  largely  avoided  as  to  make  the  importation  prac 
tically  free.  It  was,  therefore,  contended  that  the  agent 
of  the  foreign  manufacturer  or  merchant  was  ruining 
the  American  manufacturer,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
American  merchant,  on  the  other.  President  Adams 
himself,  in  his  message  of  December  5th,  1826,  referred 
to  the  frauds  thus  committed  on  the  revenue.  The 


158  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

manufacturers  of  woollens  in  New  England  and  Penn 
sylvania  memorialized  Congress,  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  year  1826,  representing  themselves  to  be  in  dire 
distress  and  praying  for  aid.  These  memorials  were  re 
ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives  for  report.  On  January  10th,  1827, 
the  chairman  of  this  committee,  Mr.  Mallary,  of  Ver 
mont,  introduced  a  bill  to  meet  the  difficulties  above 
described. 

This  bill  proposed  to  introduce  a  system  of  minimal 
valuations  at  the  custom-house  instead  of  taking  the 

The  Tariff  foreign  invoice  as  the  basis  for  the  levy  of 
BUI  of  182T.  the  duty,  as  was  the  existing  practice,  and  it 
placed  the  valuation  of  coarse  woollens  so  high  as  prac 
tically  to  prohibit  their  importation.  The  bill  proposed, 
however,  to  raise  the  tariff  on  wool  to  such  a  rate  as 
would  deprive  the  manufacturers  very  largely  of  the 
benefit  to  be  secured  by  the  system  of  minimal  valua 
tions.  It  was  questionable  whether  the  manufacturers 
would  get  any  very  material  aid  out  of  this  bill,  which 
contained  so  high  a  rate  of  duty  upon  the  raw  material, 
but  it  was  necessary  to  incorporate  the  provision  in  or 
der  to  secure  the  support  of  the  West  to  the  measure. 

The  industrial  antithesis  between  the  North  and  the 
South  became  more  exactly  organized  under  the  issue 
presented  by  this  bill.  Massachusetts  joined 
ment  of  the  the  high  protection  ranks,  and  Kentucky 
tithesisia  bT-  went  over  to  the  side  of  the  South.  Mis- 
North  Lathi  souri,  however,  still  voted  for  the  tariff, 
South'  while  New  York  City  still  preserved  its  atti 

tude  of  opposition,  and  Maine's  Representatives  were 
evenly  divided  in  the  final  vote  on  the  bill.  The 
protection  phalanx  from  Pennsylvania  was  broken,  too, 
by  the  defection  of  her  two  most  important  Eepre 
sentatives,  Ingham  and  Buchanan.  The  attitude  of 


THE   DIVISION    OF   THE    REPUBLICAN   PARTY      159 

Buchanan  was  a  matter  of  especial  note.  He  held  that 
the  constitutionality  of  the  tariff  and  the  policy  of  a 
moderate  protection  had  been  completely  settled  by  the 
founders  of  the  Constitution  and  by  the  uniform  prac 
tice  of  the  Government,  but  that  so  high  a  tariff  as  the 
one  now  proposed  on  woollens  was  impolitic,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  general  welfare,  and  unjust,  from 
that  of  an  equal  distribution  of  the  burdens  of  taxation. 
Mr.  Buchanan  owed  much  of  his  subsequent  success  to 
the  moderate  views  which  he  advanced  and  adhered  to 
at  this  juncture. 

It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  the  support  of,  and  the 
opposition  to,  the  tariff  respectively  had  not  yet  become 
entirely  sectional,  though  an  advance  had  The  bin 
been  made  since  1824  toward  that  result.  Keof Rep- 
The  bill  passed  the  House  on  February  10th,  resentatives. 
1827,  but  the  Senate  did  not  reach  its  consideration  be 
fore  the  conclusion  of  the  session. 

It  had  the  effect,  however,  of  arousing  most  intense 
excitement  and  bitter  opposition  in  South  Carolina.  In 
fact,  it  is  from  this  date  and  issue  that  we  Hostility  to 
must  trace  the  history  of  nullification  in  jjjes0utaecar!> 
South  Carolina.  In  the  summer  following  lina- 
the  Congressional  session  of  1826-27  the  chief  person 
ages  of  the  Commonwealth  assembled  at  Columbia. 
The  Governor,  Mr.  Taylor,  presided,  and  the  principal 
orator  of  the  occasion  was  the  President  of  the  Col 
lege  of  the  Commonwealth,  Dr.  Cooper,  a  man  of  rare 
powers  and  great  learning,  an  Englishman  by  birth  and 
education,  a  free-trader  in  his  political  economy,  and  a 
"  States'  rights "  man  in  his  political  science.  In  his 
speech  he  suggested  disunion  as  preferable  to  submission 
to  the  tariff  legislation  of  Congress.  The  resolutions 
passed  by  the  assembly  were  not  so  inflammatory  as  the 
Doctor's  speech,  but  they  declared  that  such  legislation 


160  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

was  calculated  to  give  rise  to  the  inquiry  whether  the 
Union  Avas  of  any  benefit,  under  such  conditions,  to  the 
Southern  Commonwealths. 

Copies  of  these  resolutions  were  sent  to  the  legislative 

bodies  of  the  several  Southern  Commonwealths,  but  they 

evoked  no  response    whatsoever.     The  pro- 

Thebillneg-  .  ^     ,      ,      ,          ,, 

lected  by  the  posed  tanii    had,    by    the    inaction  of    the 
Senate,  been  virtually  abandoned,  and  it  was 
therefore  unnecessary  to  protest  against  its  passage  as 
law,  or  make  threats  against  its  execution. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  next  session  of  Congress, 
that  of  1827-28,  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  brought 
The  Tariff  in  another  bill.  It  advanced  the  duty  on 
iron  by  from  ten  to  fifteen  per  centum  ;  it  ad 
vanced  the  duty  on  wool  by  from  about  fifty  to  more  than 
one  hundred  per  centum,  imposing  both  a  specific  and 
an  ad  valorem  duty  upon  it.  It  changed  the  duty  upon 
woollen  goods  costing  less  than  $2.50  a  square  yard  from 
an  ad  valorem  to  a  specific  duty,  and  increased  the  duty 
by  about  twenty  per  centum.  It  retained  the  ad  va 
lorem  duty  on  woollens  costing  more  than  $2.50  a  square 
yard,  and  increased  the  same  by  about  twenty  per  cen 
tum,  and  in  addition  thereto  it  imposed  a  minimum 
valuation  of  $4  a  square  yard  upon  all  such  goods 
costing  between  $2.50  and  $4  a  square  yard,  which 
would  effect  an  additional  increase  of  duty  of  about  fifty 
per  centum  on  the  average.  It  finally  increased  the 
duty  on  hemp  by  about  twenty-five  per  centum  imme 
diately,  and  by  about  eighty  per  centum  in  three  years. 
This  was  a  far  more  moderate  protection  upon  woollen 
fabrics  than  that  proposed  at  the  previous  session,  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  duty  on  the  raw  material 
was  so  greatly  increased.  It  was  at  least  questionable 
whether  the  manufacturers  would  receive  any  substan 
tial  benefit  out  of  the  measure.  Mr.  Mallary,  the  chair- 


THE   DIVISION    OF    THE    REPUBLICAN    PARTY      161 

man  of  the  committee,  felt  so  dubious  about  this  that 
he  dissented  from  the  committee's  report  in  regard  to 
woollen  fabrics,  and  offered  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for 
the  purpose  of  curing  this  defect.  He  could  not,  how 
ever,  bring  the  House  to  accept  his  proposition,  but  his 
opposition  to  the  committee's  report  opened  the  way  for 
some  modification  of  the  bill  to  the  advantage  of  the 
manufacturers.  It  was  still,  however,  no  great  boon  to 
the  manufacturers.  It  was  about  as  much  a  wool-  and 
hemp-grower's  bill  as  a  manufacturer's  bill.  Nobody 
could  tell  whether  it  would  be  more  beneficial  to  the 
manufacturers  than  to  the  wool-  and  hemp-growers. 

One  thing  alone  was  certain,  and  that  was,  that  the 
cotton-planters  and  those  engaged  in  foreign  commerce 
would  have  no  direct  share  in  the  benefits  of  the  measure. 
And  it  was  also  very  difficult  to  figure  out  any  indirect 
benefits  for  them.  It  would  hot  widen  the  domestic  mar 
ket  for  raw  cotton.  It  would  increase  the  price  of  wool 
len  fabrics.  It  would  increase  the  domestic  demand  for 
the  products  of  Western  agriculture,  and  thereby  increase 
the  price  of  these  products  to  the  Southern  consumers 
of  them.  And  it  would  discourage  the  importation  of 
woollen  goods.  These  were  all  the  results  easily  discern 
ible,  and  every  one  of  them  bore  hard  upon  the  planting 
and  shipping  interests.  The  representatives  from  the 
Southern  Commonwealths  pointed  out  these  things,  but 
they  were  told  to  establish  manufactures  themselves, 
and  then  they  would  be  tributary  to  nobody. 

Some  of  the  Southerners,  like  Colonel  Hayne,  frankly 
replied  that  they  could  not  establish  manu-  The  gouth 
f actures  with  slave  labor  ;  while  others,  like  emers  not  yet 
Mr.  McDuffie,  threatened  ruin  to  the  North-  lYare  iab&or 
ern  manufacturers  if  they  succeeded  in  hav-  employed1  in 
ing  the  duties  raised  so  high  as  to  drive  the  manufacture- 
South,  with  its  cheap  slave  labor,  into  manufactures. 
11 


162  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  vote  in  the  House  of  Representatives  reflects 
quite  perfectly  the  character  of  the  bill.  The  members 
The  charac-  from  the  wool-  and  hemp-growing  sections 
aTrffle^Vin  supported  the  bill ;  those  from  the  manu- 
t£e  voKpon  facturing  section  were  indifferent ;  those 
it-  from  the  shipping  and  commercial  sections 

opposed  it ;  and  those  from  the  planting  section  opposed 
it  unanimously. 

In  the  Senate,  amendments  were  made  to  the  bill 
which  altered  it  in  the  direction  of  a  slightly  increased 
protection  to  the  manufacturers.  Still,  Mr.  Webster, 
who  had  become  a  champion  of  protection  since  his 
section  had  become  a  manufacturing  section,  claimed 
that  the  bill  was  of  little  worth  to  the  manufacturers, 
while  the  increased  duty  on  hemp  would  bear  heavily 
on  the  shipping  interests  of  New  England.  He  voted 
for  the  bill,  however,  while  his  colleague,  Mr.  Silsbee, 
voted  against  it.  The  vote  in  the  Senate  differed  only 
slightly,  as  regards  sectional  distribution,  from  that  in 
the  House.  It  was  finally  passed  by  both  Houses  as 
amended  by  the  Senate,  and  was  signed  by  the  President 
on  the  nineteenth  day  of  May,  1828  ;  and  opposition  to 
it  thereafter  must  take  on  the  form  of  petition  for  its 
repeal,  or  that  of  resistance  to  its  execution.  Before  it 
could  come  to  the  latter,  however,  three  things  must  be 
accomplished.  The  first  was  the  invention  of  the  morale 
of  such  resistance.  The  second  was  the  creation  of  the 
party  of  resistance.  And  the  last  was  the  capture  of 
some  existing  governmental  organization  by  that  party. 

While  thus  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  "  Jackson 
men  "  voted  against  this  bill  and  the  Administration  men 

The  Tariff  for  it,  still  there  was  something  which  looked 
ownpietenpai?  ^6  an  approach,  toward  this  relation.  Cer- 
ty  measure.  tainly  the  Southern  wing  of  the  Jacksonians, 
or  of  the  Democratic  party,  as  the  Jacksonians  now  called 


THE  DIVISION   OF   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY      163 

themselves  in  distinction  from  the  National  Republicans, 
opposed  the  measure  with  something  like  unanimity. 
Many  of  Jackson's  Northern  supporters,  however,  voted 
for  the  bill,  and  it  may  be  said  that  the  Democratic  party 
of  the  North  was  then  in  favor  of  moderate  protection 
to  all  the  interests  of  the  country. 

The  party  divisions  of  1828  were  still  largely  domi 
nated  by  considerations  of  personal  partisanship,  and  the 
organization  of  the  two  parties,  which  had  now  emerged 
from  the  all-comprehending  Republican  party,  upon  the 
basis  of  different  political  creeds,  still  lacked  much  of 
completion. 

The  campaign  of  1828  was  not  fought  upon  the  issues 
of  any  well-established  differences  in  political  and  eco 
nomic  policies.  Jackson  and  his  followers  The  resi_ 
simply  appealed  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  denttai  cam- 

•   11  paign  of  1828 

especially  to  the  lower  classes,  "to  turn  the  star  dommat- 
rascals  out,"  on  the  ground  that  the  "Old  coSKSS^- 
Hero,"  the  friend  of  the  people,  had  been  t 
cheated,  by  a  corrupt  bargain  between  the  two  chiefs  of 
the  Administration,  out  of  his  rights  in  1824,  and  that 
the  whole  pack  of  officials  serving  under  them  had  been 
corrupted  by  the  venality  of  their  superiors.  The 
people  must  take  possession  of  their  Government  and 
send  the  wicked  aristocracy  of  office  holders  to  the  right 
about,  was  the  chief  demand  of  the  Democracy  of  1828, 
and  it  was  with  the  empty  phrases,  with  which  they 
rang  the  changes  upon  this  demand-,  that  they  won  the 
battle. 

Jackson  and  Calhoun  were  elected  by  an  electoral 
vote  of  more  than  two  to  one.  Every  Commonwealth 
west  of  the  Alleghanies,  and  every  one  south  Election  of 
of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  except  Delaware  Jackson- 
and  Maryland,  gave  its  electoral  vote  entire  to  Jackson 
and  Calhoun ;  and  in  addition  thereto  Pennsylvania 


164  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

gave  them  its  entire  vote,  New  York  gave  them  twenty 
of  its  thirty-six  votes,  Maine  one  of  its  nine,  and  Mary 
land  five  of  its  eleven. 

It  was  a  tremendous  bouleversement.  The  mob  of 
malcontents  had  gotten  together,  had  pulled  together, 
Advent  of  an(l  had  accomplished  their  purpose.  The 
the  parvenus.  ^  ru]ing  ciass  jn  American  society  was 
driven  from  place  and  power,  and  a  new,  untried,  and 
inexperienced  set  of  men  seized  the  reins  of  Government. 
It  looked  something  like  a  combination  of  the  South  and 
West  against  the  East.  They  had,  however,  secured  the 
two  most  important  Eastern  Commonwealths  through 
Van  Buren's  activity  in  New  York  and  Jackson's  own 
popularity  in  Pennsylvania.  It  was  not  yet,  however,  a 
socialistic  uprising  against  the  wealth  of  the  East.  It 
was  a  political  uprising  against  the  monopoly  of  office- 
holding  by  the  old  official  aristocracy.  It  was  the  intro 
duction  of  a  new  class  of  eligibles  into  the  official  posi 
tions.  Whether  the  subsequent  effects  of  this  change 
would  be  a  modification  of  the  structure  of  the  Union 
or  the  policies  of  the  Government  remained  to  be  seen. 

Jackson  placed  Van  Buren  at  the  head  of  the  Depart 
ment  of  State,  and  under  the  influence  of  this  most  as- 
Foreign  af-  tute  politician  started  out  upon  his  presiden- 
Jactoon'sld-  tial  career.  The  foreign  diplomacy  of  the 
ministration.  Administration  was  naturally  successful. 
The  disputes  with  Great  Britain  in  regard  to  the  north 
east  boundary  of  the  United  States,  and  in  regard  to 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  colo 
nies,  and  the  dispute  with  France  in  regard  to  in 
demnity  for  the  spoliations  committed  by  the  French 
upon  American  commerce  in  the  first  years  of  the  cen 
tury,  were  successfully  dealt  with,  by  a  judicious  admi-xt- 
ure  of  shrewdness,  conciliatoriness,  and  firmness.  These 
questions  were  not,  however,  of  sufficient  importance  to 


THE  DIVISION   OF   THE   REPUBLICAN   PARTY      165 

turn  the  attention  from  the  internal  questions  of  con 
stitutional  interpretation  and  governmental  policies. 

The  Jackson  party,  or  the  Democratic  party,  must 
make  its  creed,  both  political  and  economic,  and  it  must 
adjust  that  creed  both  to  the  Constitution  TheDemo- 
and  to'  the  working  of  the  Government.  J™ 5°^  divL^ 
The  party  was  composed  of  three  tolerably  ions- 
distinct  divisions,  which  may  be  termed  the  Southern, 
the  Western,  and  the  Eastern  divisions.  Of  these,  the 
Western  division  alone  was  a  real  democracy.  The 
Southern  and  Eastern  divisions  were  rather  aristocra 
cies.  The  Southern  division  was  emphatically  so.  And 
when  it  came  to  policies,  the  Western  division  favored 
internal  improvements,  and  the  Eastern  and  Southern 
divisions  opposed  them  ;  the  Western  division  favored 
a  tariff  on  wool  and  hemp,  the  Eastern  favored  moderate 
protection  of  manufactures,  and  the  Southern  division 
wanted  as  nearly  free  trade  as  the  revenues  of  the  Gov 
ernment  would  allow.  It  was  a  great  task  for  the  Ad 
ministration  to  maintain  the  combination,  and  keep  a 
reliable  majority  in  Congress. 


4 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 

DEMOCRATIC    OPPOSITION    TO    INTERNAL    IMPROVE 
MENTS  AND   PROTECTION 

Jackson's  Ideas  Concerning  Internal  Improvements — The  Maysville 
Road  Bill — The  Slavery  Question  not  Involved  in  the  Vote  on 
the  Bill  or  in  the  Veto  —  Railway  Building  Begun  —  The  Com 
mencement  of  the  Struggle  for  the  Repeal  of  the  Tariff  of 
1828— Jackson  011  the  Tariff  of  1828,  in  his  First  Annual  Mes 
sage — George  McDuffie  as  South  Carolina's  Political  Economist 
—Dr.  Thomas  Cooper— Mr.  McDuffie's  Tariff  Bill— The  Tariff 
Bill  of  1830 — McDuffie's  Amendment— McDuffie's  Doctrine 
that  the  Producers  of  Exports  Pay  Finally  the  Duties  on  the 
Imports — The  Acceptance  of  Mr.  McDuffie's  Doctrine  at  the 
South — Growing  Belief  in  the  Incapacity  of  Slave  Labor  for 
Manufacture  —  The  Tariff  Pronounced  Unconstitutional  — 
Growth  of  the  Protection  Idea— Jackson  011  the  Tariff  and 
the  Surplus  Revenue  Derived  therefrom,  in  the  Message  of 
December,  1830  —  Southern  Disappointment — "The  South 
Carolina  Exposition  " — Calhoun's  Doctrine  of  "  States'  rights  '' 
— Nullification  in  Theory — The  Nullification  and  Aiiti  nullifi 
cation  Parties  in  South  Carolina — First  Attempt  to  try  the 
Validity  of  the  Tariff  in  the  United  States  Courts— Nullifica 
tion  and  Rebellion — Jackson's  Message  of  December,  1831, 
on  the  Tariff  Issue— The  Bill  from  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means— The  Tariff  Bill  of  1832  from  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures — Passage  of  the  Tariff  of  1832  by  the  House  of 
Representatives — The  t;  American  System." 

IN  his  first  annual  message  President  Jackson  referred 
to  the  general  dissatisfaction  with  the  manner  of  deal- 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      167 

ing  with  the  question  of  internal  improvements  which 
had  prevailed  to  that  time,  and  proposed  that  the  gen 
eral  Government  should  abandon  the  subject  JackBOn»B 
entirely  and  should  distribute  the  surplus  of  ideas  concem- 

,i  i  ^  •>  xi        n  ing  internal 

the  revenue,  above  the  wants  of  the  Govern-  improve 
ment,  among  the  Commonwealths,  and  leave 
to  them  the  expenditure  of  the  money  upon  internal 
improvements. 

The  Congress,  however,  paid  no  regard  to  the  Presi 
dent's  recommendation.  In  May,  1830,  it  sent  up  to 
the  President  for  his  approval  a  bill  author-  The  Mayg. 
izing  and  requiring  the  Government  to  take  ville Road Bill< 
stock  in  a  Kentucky  turnpike,  running  from  Maysville 
on  the  Ohio  River  to  Lexington,  some  sixty  miles  in 
ward. 

The  President  vetoed  the  bill,  May  27th.  His  spe 
cial  reason  was  that  the  road  was  not  a  national,  but  a 
local,  matter.  He  did  not  attack  the  Mon-  The  veto  of 
roe  principle  upon  the  general  subject  of  in-  the  blll> 
ternal  improvements,  but  he  referred  to  the  recommen 
dation  contained  in  his  annual  message  as  still  expressing 
his  view  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Government  should 
rid  itself  of  the  embarrassments  into  which  it  was  being 
farther  and  farther  drawn  by  the  practice  of  voting  na 
tional  money  for  internal  improvements.  He  argued 
that  the  subject  must  be  considered  upon  its  own  merits, 
and  not  brought  into  connection  with  the  tariff  policy. 
He  thus  saw  the  prospect  of  the  expenditure  of  millions 
of  national  money  upon  internal  improvements  in  order 
to  relieve  the  protectionists  of  the  embarrassment  of  a 
great  surplus,  and  denounced  it.  He  contended  that 
the  Government  should  adopt  its  policy  upon  each  of 
these  subjects  as  if  the  other  did  not  exist.  He  urged, 
finally,  that,  if  the  people  wanted  the  general  Govern 
ment  to  undertake  internal  improvements,  they  should 


168  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

so  amend  the  Constitution  as  to  give  the  Government 
sufficient  jurisdiction  over  the  roads  and  canals,  which 
it  might  build,  to  protect  them  against  wanton  injury, 
and  to  collect  the  tolls  necessary  to  keep  them  in  re 
pair.  This  he  declared  to  be  necessary  to  any  satisfac 
tory  exercise  of  powers  upon  the  general  subject  by  the 
Government. 

The  veto  certainly  exerted  some  influence  upon  the 
minds  of  the  Representatives.  A  majority  still  voted 
for  the  bill,  but  it  was  a  much-reduced  majority.  The 
vote  upon  the  vetoed  bill  stood  ninety-six  to  ninety. 
The  bill  was  therefore  lost. 

The  exact  question  at  issue  was  not,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  general  policy  of  internal  improvements,  but  it 
The  s la-  was  whether  the  Maysville  road  was  a  na- 
no7  uSvoived  tional  improvement.  An  analysis  of  the 
t£ethbm°OT  in  vote  1TP°n  tne  Sllbject  maJ  not;  therefore, 
the  veto.  have  any  significance,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  general  question.  Roughly,  we  may  say  that  a 
majority  of  the  Representatives  from  the  South  voted 
against  the  bill,  a  large  majority  of  those  from  the  North 
west  voted  for  it,  a  majority  of  those  from  Pennsylvania 
and  New  Jersey  voted  for  it,  while  a  majority  of  those 
from  New  York  voted  against  it,  and,  lastly,  the  Repre 
sentatives  from  New  England  were  divided.  It  thus 
appears  rather  far  fetched  to  ascribe  the  attitude  of  the 
opponents  of  the  bill,  in  any  section,  to  the  influence 
of  the  slavery  interest.  Those  who  voted  against  the 
bill  said  they  did  so  because  the  object  for  which  the 
appropriation  was  sought  was  a  local  affair,  managed 
by  a  private  corporation,  for  private  gain.  That  un 
compromising  enemy  of  slavery,  Mr.  John  W.  Taylor, 
of  New  York,  was  prominent  among  those  who  took 
this  position  and  voted  against  the  bill.  He  even  pro 
nounced  it  unconstitutional,  and  was  inclined  to  the 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      169 

view,,  as  we  have  seen,  that  internal  improvements  gen 
erally  were  left  by  the  Constitution  for  the  Common 
wealths  to  construct  and  control. 

It  is  usual  to  attribute  to  the  veto  of  this  bill  the 
overthrow  of  the  policy  of  internal  improvements  bv  the 
general  Government.  This  proposition  will  TOO  much 
hardly  bear  close  examination.  Congress 
continued  to  make  appropriations  for  inter- 
nal  improvements,  which  the  President  usu- 
ally  vetoed,  if  they  were  in  separate  bills, 

•L  J  '    cribed  to   the 

and  usually  approved,  if  they  were  included  veto. 
in  the  general  appropriation  bills.  It  is  calculated  that 
while  Adams  signed  appropriations  for  internal  im 
provements  to  the  amount  of  less  than  two  millions  and 
a  half  of  dollars,  Jackson  approved  disbursements  for 
these  purposes  to  the  amount  of  more  than  ten  millions 
of  dollars. 

The  fact  is  that  the  building  of  railways  was  the  chief 
force  which  put  an  end  to  road-  and  canal-making  by 
the  general  Government.  The  construction 
of  the  Mohawk  and  Hudson  Railroad,  the  building  W5e- 
parent  of  the  New  York  Central  system,  gun' 
was  begun  in  1825.  In  1827  the  survey  of  the  Boston 
and  Albany  line  was  begun.  The  same  year  the  Penn 
sylvania  system  had  its  origin.  One  year  later  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  system  was  founded.  The  year  of 
the  veto  of  the  Maysville  road  bill  forty-one  miles  of 
railroad  were  being  operated  in  the  United  States,  and 
at  the  close  of  the  decade  more  than  two  thousand 
miles.  As  the  railway  system  spread  over  the  country, 
through  private  enterprise,  the  appropriations  of  na 
tional  money  for  internal  improvements  became  more 
and  mom  confined  to  the  specific  improvements  of  rivers 
and  Harbork.  The  roads  and  canals  of  a  national  char 
acter  were  being  made  unnecessary  by  the  extension  of 


170  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

the  railways.  It  is  undoubtedly,  then,  far  more  plausi 
ble  and  natural  to  attribute  the  overthrow  of  the  policy 
of  internal  improvements  by  the  general  Government  to 
the  growth  of  the  railways,  constructed  and  operated 
by  private  corporations  under  Commonwealth  charters, 
on  the  one  side,  and,  on  the  other,  to  the  settled  con 
viction  that  the  general  Government  did  not  have  the 
constitutional  powers  adequate  to  the  successful  estab 
lishment  and  protection  of  a  system  of  works  based 
upon  that  policy,  and  to  the  unsatisfactory  experience 
which  the  country  had  had  in  attempting  to  distin 
guish  local  from  national  enterprises  and  to  confine  ap 
propriations  to  those  of  the  latter  character. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  any  special  connection  of  the 
interests  of  slavery  with  the  decline  of  the  policy.  It  is 
true  that  the  slaveholders  were  becoming  strict  con- 
structionists  generally.  They  had  learned  from  the 
Missouri  struggle  that  Congress  must  not  be  allowed  to 
magnify  its  powers  when  forming  the  Territories  into 
Commonwealths,  and  they  had  learned  from  the  tariff 
struggles  that  Congress  must  not  be  allowed  to  magnify 
its  powers  in  regard  to  the  regulation  of  foreign  com 
merce  and  the  raising  of  revenue,  but,  as  to  internal 
improvements,  no  reliable  evidence  of  a  consciousness, 
on  the  part  of  the  slaveholders,  of  any  particular  con 
nection  between  their  peculiar  interest  and  a  policy 
upon  this  subject  by  the  general  Government  is  dis 
coverable. 

On  the  contrary,  in  the  struggle  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Tariff  of  1828  the  influence  of  the  slavery  interest  is 
easily  remarked,  and  is  clearly  seen  to  have  been  con 
trolling. 

On  February  10th,  1829,  Mr.  William  Smith,  the 
senior  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  presented  to  the 
Senate  the  protest  of  the  Legislature  of  South  Caro- 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      171 

lina  against  Congressional  protection  to  domestic  man 
ufactures.  This  memorial  pronounced  all  such  acts 
to  be  unconstitutional,  except  as  incidental  The  co in 
to  raising  the  revenue  or  regulating  com 
merce,  and  impolitic  even  then,  when  their 
operation  would  be  unequal  upon  the  dif-  Ofl828- 
ferent  sections  of  the  country,  and  felt  by  any  sec 
tion  to  be  oppressive.  The  language  of  the  paper  was 
respectful,  moderate,  dignified,  and  forcible,  and  it 
contained  no  threats  of  disunion,  or  of  violent  or  un 
lawful  resistance.  The  Legislature  asked  that  the  pro 
test  should  be  entered  on  the  journal  of  the  Senate. 
The  Senate,  however,  only  ordered  it  to  be  printed. 

The  South  Carolinians  promised  themselves,  never 
theless,  some  measure  of  relief  from  what  they  supposed 
would  be  the  policy  of  the  newly  elected  President.  Be 
ing  a  Southern  man,  it  was  naturally  supposed  that  he 
would  recognize  Southern  interests  in  the  policy  upon 
this  subject  which  he  would  recommend.  But,  while 
Jackson  had  not  committed  himself  to  protection  for 
the  sake  of  the  manufacturers  or  of  the  producers  of 
raw  material,  he  was  a  strong  Union  man  and  an 
American,  and  the  argument  for  the  tariff  from  the 
point  of  view  of  national  industrial  independence  exer 
cised  a  prevailing  influence  in  determining  his  attitude 
toward  the  subject. 

In  his  message  of  December  8th,  1829,  he  wrote 
that  the  Tariff  of  1828  had  not  proved  itself  so  bene 
ficial  to  the  manufacturers  or  so  iniurious 

J  Jackson  on 

to  commerce  and  agriculture  as  had  been  an-  Jig  Tariff  of 
ticipated  ;  that  he  regretted  that  all  nations  fi r 8 1 'annual 
would  not  abolish  restrictions,  and  refer  the 
management  of  trade  to  individual  enterprise  ;  that 
since,  however,  they  would  not  do  so,  a  tariff  was  the 
necessary  policy  of  the  United  States  ;  but  that  in  the 


172  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

face  of  the  fact  that  the  national  debt  would  soon  be 
paid,  and  the  sinking  fund  would  not  be  much  longer 
required,  a  modification  of  the  existing  tariff  in  the 
direction  of  a  reduction  of  duties  would  soon  be  the 
true  and  necessary  policy  ;  and  that  the  principle  to  be 
followed  in  making  such  a  modification  ought  to  be  to 
reduce  the  duties  upon  such  articles  as  might  come  into 
competition  with  home  products  no  further  than  would 
leave  to  the  latter  a  fair  chance  in  such  competition  ;  and 
that  from  the  general  principle  of  a  reduction  to  this 
point  must  be  excepted  the  duties  on  the  implements 
and  prime  necessities  of  war,  all  of  which  should  enjoy 
a  higher  protection  than  that  accorded  to  other  articles. 
Jackson's  Evidently,  according  to  this  doctrine,  the 
Tariff  °a  stba  cnie^  reductions  should  fall  upon  articles 
general  policy.  not  coming  into  competition  with  home  prod 
ucts,  such  articles  as  tea,  coffee,  etc.,  at  that  time 
termed  the  unprotected  articles.  Jackson  had  thus  an 
ticipated  Clay's  American  system  of  the  tariff  by  nearly 
three  years,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  South  Carolinians  were  greatly  disappointed  by 
this  expression  of  the  President's  views,  although  they 
claimed  that  the  message  recommended  substantial 
tariff  reduction.  This  part  of  the  message  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  according  to  the  rule 
of  procedure  which  had  prevailed  in  the  House  of  Bep- 
resentatives  for  nearly  a  decade,  and  which  showed  that 
the  matter  of  the  tariff  was  not  regarded  as  something 
purely  incidental  to  the  raising  of  revenue. 

The  claim  was  now  put  forward,  however,  that  the 
Pr°perly  belonged  to  the  domain  of 


Geor  e  MC 
Duffle  as  south  the  Committee  on  "Was  and  Means.     Mr. 


George  McDuffie,  of  South  Carolina,  was  at 
this  moment  the  chairman  of  this  commit 
tee.     He  was  a  man  of  keen  intelligence,  strong  cour- 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      173 

age,  and  great  persistence.  He  was  the  political  econ 
omist  of  the  slave-labor  system,  as  Calhoun  was  its 
political  scientist  and  constitutional  lawyer.  It  is  to 
be  surmised,  at  least,  that  he  learned  much  of  his  politi 
cal  economy  from  the  notorious,  if  not  fa-  Dr  Thomas 
mous,  Dr.  Thomas  Cooper,  the  British  Pres-  Co°Per- 
ident  of  South  Carolina  College.  It  is  true  that  Mr. 
McDuffiVs  college  days  had  passed  before  Dr.  Cooper 
taught  in  the  institution,  but  the  Doctor  wrote  and  pub 
lished  much  upon  economic  and  political  subjects  be 
tween  1820  and  1830.  In  fact,  he  set  the  direction  of 
thought  upon  such  subjects  in  South  Carolina  and 
throughout  a  large  portion  of  the  South  during  that 
period.  As  has  been  already  mentioned,  he  was  an  Eng 
lishman  by  birth.  He  had  spent  a  part  of  his  earlier 
life  in  France,  and  had  imbibed  the  doctrines  of  French 
republicanism.  For  this  reason  he  was  disliked  and 
shunned  by  conservative  men  in  England  to  such  a  de 
gree  as  to  make  longer  residence  in  his  native  country 
uncomfortable  to  him.  He  came  to  the  United  States 
in  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century.  His  rad 
ical  views  and  his  violent  expressions  of  them  soon  drew 
attention  to  him  here.  He  was  one  of  the  men  pros 
ecuted  under  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  of  1798.  He 
made  his  way  to  South  Carolina  about  the  beginning  of 
the  third  decade  of  this  century,  and  found  there  a  well 
prepared  soil  for  his  Girondist  views  of  federal  Govern 
ment  and  his  free-trade  views  in  political  economy.  A 
true  estimate  of  responsibilities  for  the  events  of  1832 
in  South  Carolina  would  probably  hold  him  more  cul 
pable  than  Calhoun  himself.  It  was  from  such  a 
thinker,  and  he  was  a  keen  and  vigorous  thinker,  that 
Mr.  McDuffie  received  impulse,  if  not  actual  instruction, 
in  his  reasoning. 

Mr.  McDuffie  argued  that  the  power  to  impose  a  tariff 


174  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

was  not  expressly  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  Gov 
ernment  ;  that,  therefore,  if  it  existed  at  all,  as  a  power 
of  the  Government,  it  must  be  incidental  to  some  express 
provision  ;  and  that  it  could  be  incidental  only  to  the 
power  for  raising  the  revenue.  He,  therefore,  con 
tended  further  that  all  tariff  bills  must  originate  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  in  the  regular  revenue 
committee  of  that  House,  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means. 

Congress  had  disregarded  the  protest  of  the  South 
Carolina  Legislature  of  the  previous  February.  It  was 
well  known  that  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  in  the 
House  was  favorable  to  the  maintenance  of  the  existing 
duties.  It  seemed,  therefore,  to  Mr.  McDuffie,  and 
those  who  thought  with  him,  both  natural  and  necessary 
that  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  should  claim 
their  constitutional  prerogative,  and  make  an  effort  to 
get  the  ear  of  Congress  to  their  representations.  Conse 
quently,  on  February  5th,  1830,  Mr.  McDuffie 
He's*  Tariff  reported  a  tariff  bill  from  his  committee, 
without  having  had  the  subject  specifically 
referred  to  them  by  the  House.  The  bill  provided  for  a 
moderate  reduction  of  the  tariff  all  around,  but  still  left 
a  duty  of  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  centum  ad  va 
lorem  upon  woollen  fabrics. 

The  interest  attaching  to  this  proposition  lies  in  the 
fact  that  it  contains  substantially  the  terms  upon  which 
the  South  Carolinians  were  willing  to  compromise  the 
tariff  question.  It  shows  them  to  have  been  still  mod 
erate  tariff  men,  rather  than  out  and  out  free  traders. 
To  the  unprejudiced  mind  of  the  present  day  it  cer 
tainly  appears  to  have  been  an  offer  which  merited 
some  consideration,  but,  after  a  single  reading,  it  was 
ordered  to  lie  on  the  table,  from  which  it  was  never 
taken  up. 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      175 

Meanwhile  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  were 
very  deliberately  maturing  a  measure.  It  was  reported 
to  the  House  early  in  April,  and  taken  up  The  Tariff 
for  consideration  on  the  loth.  It  was  Biiiofisso. 
nothing  more  than  an  administrative  measure  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  a  stricter  execution  of  the  existing 
tariff. 

Mr.  McDuffie  made  another  effort  to  move  the  House 
to  consider  a  reduction  of  duties,  in  the  form  of  an 
amendment  to  this  bill.  He  oifered  such  an  McDuffie' s 
amendment,  which  provided  for  a  return  to  Amendment, 
the  duties  imposed  before  1824  upon  woollens,  cottons, 
iron,  hemp,  etc. 

It  was  in  support  of  this  amendment  that  he  made  his 
famous  argument  of  April  29th,  1830,  in  which  he  de 
veloped,  for  the  first  time,  the  doctrine  in  re-  McDuffle,g 
gard  to  the  final  payment  of  the  duties  which  doctrine  that 
furnished  the  economic  basis  of  nullification,  of6  export? 
That  doctrine  was  that  the  producers  of  the  the  duties  aou 
exports,  which  are  exchanged  in  the  foreign  the  imports- 
markets  for  the  imports,  pay,  finally,  the  duty  upon  the 
imports.  His  course  of  reasoning  in  the  establishment 
of  this  doctrine  was  as  follows  :  He  reduced  all  trade 
ultimately  to  barter  between  producers,  and  then  de 
clared  it  to  be  self-evident  that  when  a  producer  of  ex 
ports  should  be  obliged  to  pay  a  duty  of  twenty-five  per 
centum  upon  the  imports,  which  he  had  received  in  pay 
for  his  exports,  before  he  could  bring  them  into  the 
country  of  his  residence,  he  had  received  finally  twenty- 
five  per  centum  less  for  his  exports  than  he  would  have 
received  had  he  not  been  compelled  to  pay  any  duty 
upon  his  imports. 

Mr.  McDuffie  then  drew  from  the  statistics  of  the 
foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  the  fact  that  the  sec 
tions  cultivating  cotton  and  rice,  constituting  less  than 


176  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

one-fifth  of  the  Union,  both  in  territory  and  population, 
produced  thirty  of  the  fifty-eight  millions'  worth  of  an 
nual  exports  ;  and  finally  drew  the  conclusion  from  these 
premises  that  one-fifth  of  the  people,  the  population  of 
the  planting  sections,  paid  more  than  one-half  of  the 
duties  on  the  imports  of  the  country. 

If  this  were  true  it  was  indeed  a  grievous  burden.  And 
if  the  people  of  the  South,  or  that  part  of  the  South  de- 
The  danger  voted  to  the  production  of  these  staples,  be- 
lieved  it  to  be  true,  then  would  the  reason  for 
one  great  scruple  against  resistance  to  the  ex 
ecution  of  the  tariff  laws  be  removed,  namely,  the  gen 
eral  belief  theretofore  prevailing,  from  the  doctrine  that 
the  consumers  of  the  imports  ultimately  pay  the  duties, 
that  the  burden  of  the  duties  fell  nearly  equally  upon 
the  different  sections.  So  long  as  this  belief  was  gen 
eral  the  sense  of  oppression  in  any  particular  part  or 
section  of  the  country  could  not  become  very  keen. 
Substitute  for  this  old  idea,  however,  the  new  doctrine 
advanced  by  Mr.  McDufne,  and,  under  the  existing  dis- 
tribittion  of  the  articles  of  export,  there  could  not  fail 
to  be  aeveloped  a  most  bitter  sense  of  wrong  and  op 
pression  on  the  part  of  the  producers  of  the  Southern 
staples. 

The  Southerners,  especially  the  South  Carolinians,  did 
embrace  the  new  doctrine,  apparently,  at  least,  with  all 
sincerity.  It  was  utterly  futile  that  Mr. 
ance  of  Mr.  Gorham  and  Mr.  Everett  pointed  out  to  them 
doctrine  at  the  the  fact  that  they  consumed  only  a  compara 
tively  small  portion  of  the  imports  received 
in  exchange  for  their  exports,  and  sold  the  rest  to  the 
people  of  the  other  sections  with  the  duties  added  on, 
thus  shifting  the  duties  upon  the  other  sections.  They 
clung  to  the  new  doctrine  as  if  it  were  something  for 
which  they  had  long  been  seeking,  and  to  which  their 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      177 

hearts  were  already  too  much  attached  to  be  drawn  away 
by  argument. 

It  was  in  this  speech,  furthermore,  that  Mr.  McDuffie 
abandoned  his  former  view  of  the  capacity  of  slave  labor 
for  manufacturing  industry,  and  embraced  Growin  be 
and  enounced  the  doctrine  held  before  this  liefintheinca- 
by  Colonel  Hayne  upon  that  subject,  which  ISS/formaS 
was  that  slave  labor  could  only  be  employed  l 
successfully  in  agriculture.  This  was,  of  course,  another 
necessary  element  in  the  consolidation  of  the  interests 
of  the  South  against  the  tariff. 

It  was  in  this  speech,  also,  that  Mr.  McDuffie,  for  the 
first  time,  pronounced  the  tariff  unconstitutional.  He 
did  not  yet  declare  any  and  every  tariff  un-  The  Tariff 
constitutional,  but  only  such  a  tariff  as  sacri-  Sn^oSJtiti? 
ficed  one  interest  to  another,  or  the  interests  tional- 
of  one  section  to  those  of  another.  This  he  claimed  the 
existing  tariff  did  do.  The  belief  in  the  unconstitution 
ally  of  the  tariff  was,  of  course,  another  necessary  ele 
ment  in  the  preparation  for  resistance  to  its  execution. 

Finally,  Mr.  McDuffie  uttered,  in  this  speech,  the. 
threat  of  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  MC Duffle's 
tariff  laws,  the  threat  of  nullification.  It  was 
ill-timed,  as  threats  generally  are,  and  it  had 
the  effect  of  producing  the  large  majority 
by  which  Mr.  McDufnVs  amendment  was  voted  down. 

The  bill  suffered  some  modification  in  the  course  of 
its  passage,  but  its  principle  remained  the  same.  It 
reduced  the  duty  on  no  article  whatever,  but  only  pro 
vided  for  a  stricter  enforcement  of  the  existing  laws. 

By  another  bill,  which  received  the  President's 
approval  on  May  20th  (1830),  eight  days  be-  Growth  of 
fore  this  administrative  bill  was  signed,  the  the  protection 
duties  on  tea,  coffee,  and  cocoa  had  been  re 
duced.  This  meant  that  the  protectionists  were  very 
12 


178  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

willing  to  free  those  articles  from  duty  which  did  not 
come  into  competition  with  home  productions,  in  order 
to  preserve  and  increase  the  duties  on  those  that  did. 
This  was  the  direction  in  which  the  tariff  system  was 
growing.  It  became,  two  years  later,  the  pronounced 
principle  of  the  "American  system/'  as  we  shall  see. 

In  the  message  of  December  7th,  1830,  President  Jack 
son   defended   the   constitutionality  of    the   protective 
Jackson  on  sJstem>  sai(i  that  the  existing  tariff  needed 
thelurpfus  some  corrections  in  details,  and  expressed  the 
revenue  de-  opinion  that  no  law  reducing  duties  could  be 

rived  there 
from,  in  the  made    which   would   be   satisfactory   to   the 

message  of     A  1,1  ,  , 

December,  American  people  that  would  not  leave  a  con 
siderable  surplus  in  the  Treasury.  He  sug 
gested  the  employment  of  such  surplus  upon  internal 
improvements  under  the  direction  of  the  legislatures 
of  the  several  Commonwealths. 

This  was  a  stunning  blow  to  the  hopes  of  the  South 
erners.     The  extinction  of  the  debt  and  the  existence 
southern  °^  an  unempl°yed  surplus  were  the  condi- 
disappoint-  tions  to  which  they  had  looked  forward  as  ne- 

inent.  . ,    , .         .        ,,    * 

cessitatmg  in  all  conservative  minds  the  re 
duction  of  the  duties.  But  here  was  a  plan,  suggested  by 
a  Southern  President,  for  relieving  the  Treasury  of  any 
amount  of  surplus  for  an  indefinite  period,  without  the 
reduction  of  a  single  penny  of  duty  upon  a  single  article. 
Thus  encouraged  the  protectionists  in  both  Houses  of 
Congress  refused,  during  the  session  of  1830-31,  to  con 
sider  any  propositions  looking  toward  a  reduction  of 
duties. 

It  is  hardly  a  cause  of  wonder  that  the  South  Carolin 
ians  began  to  despair  of  obtaining  through  Congress  any 
relief  from  what  they  regarded  as  dire  oppression,  and 
that  some  of  them  were  reviewing  the  Constitution,  and 
the  political  principles  upon  which  it  was  founded,  with 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      179 

the  purpose  of  finding  other  means  with  which  to  meet 
the  great  emergency.  It  was  in  this  part  of  the  work 
that  Mr.  Calhoun  took  the  lead. 

As  far  back  as  1828,  just  after  the  enactment  of  the 
tariff  measure  which  was  giving  so  much  offence,  Mr. 
Calhoun  had  started  out  in  this  direction  in  ,,TheSouth 
the  paper  which  he  furnished  the  South  Car-  Carolina  ^EX- 
olina  Legislature,  which  served  as  the  basis  of  1 
the  first  pronunciamento  from  that  body  upon  the  sub 
ject,  the  so-called  South  Carolina  Exposition.  This 
document  by  Mr.  Calhoun  was  comparatively  temperate 
in  its  language  and  not  very  clear  in  its  political  doc 
trines  and  its  constitutional  interpretation.  The  great 
debate  between  Hayne  and  Webster  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  over  which  body  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  Vice-Presi- 
dent,  presided,  in  regard  to  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  Union,  taught  Mr.  Calhoun  several  very  impor 
tant  points  in  the  evolution  of  his  doctrine  of  "  States' 
rights."  Especially  was  he  warned  against  the  great 
error,  made  by  Mr.  Hayne,  of  representing  the  United 
States  Government  as  one  of  the  parties  to  the  "  consti 
tutional  pact  "and  the  "States"  as  the  other.  Mr. 
Webster  so  completely  demolished  this  theory  that  Mr. 
Calhoun  was  preserved  from  introducing  this  fallacy  or 
any  of  its  corollaries  into  his  reasoning,  if  he  had  ever 
been  inclined  to  do  so.  In  his  "Address  caihoun's 
on  the  Relations  of  the  States  and  Federal  W^fiYe? 
Government,"  and  in  his  "Address  to  the  right8-" 
People  of  South  Carolina,"  both  published  in  the  sum 
mer  of  1831,  he  shows  that  he  had  maturely  reflected 
upon  all  that  had  been  said  and  written  upon  the  fun 
damental  question  of  the  relation  of  the  "States "to 
the  Union  and  to  the  general  Government.  He  had 
given  up  his  hope  both  in  the  Congress  and  in  the  Presi 
dent.  With  him  the  question  of  the  tariff  had  now, 


180  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

therefore,  been  removed  from  the  domain  of  govern 
mental  policy  into  that  of  constitutional  powers  and 
political  principle.  This  was  the  point  of  view  which 
he  took  in  the  documents  just  mentioned. 

He  began,  as  innovators  generally  do,  with  the  asser 
tion  that  his  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  was  no 
new  invention  of  his  own,  but  was  the  ancient  principle 
of  the  Constitution.     That  principle  was,  he  contended, 
that  the  Constitution  was  made  by  the  "'States,"  as  sov 
ereign  bodies,  and  that  through  it  the  " States"  created 
only  a  governmental   agent  for   their   general   affairs. 
The  term  or  phrase  United  States  was  only  the  name  of 
the  general  governmental  agent  of  the  "  States."    Sov 
ereignty  wras   in    the   "States"   only.      Consequently, 
,  when  the  United  States  assumed  powers  not  conferred 
by  the  "  States  "  in  the  Constitution,  the  "  States,"  by 
'  virtue  of  the  sovereign  attribute,  might  and  should  in- 
'  terpose,  interpose  individually,  not  collectively  as  they, 
•(  of  course,  might  do  constitutionally  through  the  regu 
lar  form  of  procedure  for  amending  the  Constitution. 

Calhoun,  like  ever}7  other  real  statesman  of  his  day, 
r  held  that  there  is  a  domain  of  liberty  secured  not  only 
to  the  minority,  but  to  the  individual,  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  upon  which  the  majority  shall  not  encroach.  The 
practical  question  was  how  to  prevent  the  majority,  in 
possession  of  the  powers  and  machinery  of  the  Govern 
ment,  from  doing  so.  The  answer  to  this  question  de 
veloped  by  precedent,  and  formulated  clearly  by  Web 
ster  at  that  very  moment,  was  that  it  could  be  done  only 
by  invoking  the  aid  of  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States.  But  Calhoun  said  in  reply  to  this,  that  the 
United  States  courts  were  a  part  of  the  Government, 
substantially  under  the  control  of  Congress  and  the 
President,  through  the  power  of  Congress  to  constitute 
judgeships  at  pleasure,  and  of  the  President  and  the 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      181 

Senate  to  fill  them,  and  that  they  were  interested,  there 
fore,  in  the  usurpations  of  power  by  the  Government. 
He  further  held  that  these  courts  could  not  decide  polit 
ical  questions,  although  these  questions  might  incident 
ally  involve  the  most  sacred  rights  of  individuals,  and 
that,  anyhow,  they  were  as  much  subject  to  the  "  States," 
acting  in  their  sovereign  capacities,  as  any  other  part  of 
the  Government.  He  could  see  no  way  for  preserving 
the  rights  of  the  minority  and  of  individuals,  in  last  re 
sort,  against  governmental  usurpation,  save  through  the 
power  of  "each  of  the  parties  to  the  com-  Nullification 
pact"  to  prevent  the  execution  within  the  intbeory- 
territory  subject  to  its  jurisdiction  of  such  governmental 
measures  as  it  might  deem  usurpations. 

Down  to  the  time  of  these  utterances  of  Calhoun  the 
party  in  South  Carolina  opposed  to  any  resistance,  by 
force,  to  the  execution  of  the  tariff  laws,  The  nuiim- 
had  been  able  to  prevent  the  outbreak  of 
nullification.  The  leaders  of  this  party  were 
among  the  most  distinguished  and  influential  lina- 
men  of  the  Commonwealth.  They  were  Mr.  Dray  ton, 
the  member  of  Congress  from  the  Charleston  district, 
Judge  Johnson  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court, 
Mr.  Pettigrew,  Mr.  Grimke,  the  Lowndes,  and  others 
of  scarcely  less  note.  In  the  first  half  of  the  year 
1831  they  still  held  control  of  the  municipal  gov 
ernment  of  Charleston,  and*  of  the  legislature  of  the 
Commonwealth,  although  the  "States'  rights"  men  had 
obtained  the  governorship.  Nearly  all  of  the  opponents 
of  nullification  denounced  the  tariff  laws  as  unjust  and 
oppressive  to  the  South,  but  they  also  denounced  the 
doctrine  that  the  execution  of  any  law  of  the  United 
States  could  be  constitutionally  resisted,  except  by 
means  of  the  judicial  processes  provided  for  the  case  by 
the  Constitution  itself.  Resistance  in  any  other  man- 


182"  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ner,  they  declared,  would  be  rebellion  at  the  outset, 
revolution  if  successful.  They  said  that  they  were  not 
willing  to  assume  any  such  responsibilities  in  opposing 
the  tariff  laws,  and  that  they  regarded  the  blessings  of 
the  Union  as  too  great  and  manifold  to  hazard  disunion, 
even  if  it  could  be  successfully  and  peaceably  accom 
plished. 

Their  views  were  so  candid  and  reasonable  that,  in 
spite  of  the  intense  excitement  which  prevailed  during 
the  legislative  session  following  the  failure  of  the  at 
tempt  to  modify  the  tariff,  they  prevented  the  nullifies 
from  securing  a  sufficient  majority  in  the  Legislature  to 
order  the  call  of  a  convention.  The  nullifiers  had  com 
mitted  themselves  to  the  doctrine  that  the  nullifying 
power  was  a  power  of  sovereignty,  not  of  government, 
and  that  it  resided,  therefore,  in  the  convention,  not  in 
the  legislature.  So  long,  then,  as  the  assembly  of  the 
convention  could  be  prevented,  nullification  could  be 
certainly  thwarted. 

But  the  publication  of  Calhoun's  new  doctrine  in  the 
capture  of  summer  of  1831  gave  great  strength  to  the 

the  municipal  IT.C  n    .        ., 

government  nulliners,  and  in  the  municipal  election  of 
by  tneanuiiif£  the   latter  part   of  the   year  they  captured 

the  mayor  ship  of  Charleston. 

One  of  the  strongest  moral  forces  in  the  hands  of  the 
opponents  of  nullification  against  which  the  nullifiers 
had  to  contend  was  the  generally  received  doctrine  that 
the  constitutional  means  for  meeting  Congressional  usur 
pation  in  any  given  case  was  a  process  in  the  United 
First  at-  States  courts.  Unless  they  could  say  that 
tn™?a]idVof  they  had  tried  this  means  in  vain,  they  would 
Si  united  sti11  have  to  suffer  the  imputation  of  too  hasty 
states  courts.  acti0n,  if  nothing  more.  In  order  to  escape 
this,  two  Charleston  lawyers  imported  a  package  of 
dutiable  goods,  gave  bonds  for  the  payment  of  the  duty, 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      183 

refused  payment,  and  were  sued  upon  their  bonds  in 
the  United  States  District  Court.  The  plan  was  to  have 
the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  tariff  sub 
mitted  to  the  jury,  but  the  court  refused  to  allow  the 
jury  to  decide  any  question  except  that  which  pertained 
to  the  due  execution  of  the  bond. 

The  nullifiers  could  now  declare  that  every  means 
suggested  by  their  opponents  as  regular  and  lawful  had 
been  tried  and  had  failed,  and  that  there  now  remained 
only  submission  to  oppression,  or  nullification,  or  re 
bellion.  They  said  that  no  true  South  Carolinian  could 
accept  the  first,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Nullification 
choice  lay  between  nullification  and  rebel-  and  "beuion. 
lion.  Calhoun  taught  that  there  was  a  vast  difference 
between  the  two  ;  that  the  former  was  a  constitutional, 
as  well  as  a  sovereign,  method  of  resistance.  He  as 
serted  that  it  was  the  great  conservative  principle  of  the 
Constitution,  and  defined  it  to  be  that  reserved  right 
whereby  a  "  State,"  in  convention  assembled,  might  sus 
pend  the  operation  of  a  Congressional  act  upon  its  citi 
zens  which  it  considered  unconstitutional,  until  conven 
tions  in  three-fourths  of  the  "  States  "  should  pronounce 
the  Congressional  act  to  be  constitutional.  He  did  not 
claim  that  this  right  was  reserved  specifically,  but  by 
implication  from  the  general  language  of  the  Tenth 
Amendment.  He  was  doubtless  sincere,  or  at  least 
thought  he  was.  Many  of  his  followers  certainly  were, 
and  the  masses,  who  could  not  understand  the  doctrine, 
but  took  it  on  faith,  were  so  certain  of  its  truth  that 
they  were  ready  to  risk  anything  for  its  vindication. 

The  Unionists,  however,  branded  the  doctrine  as  a 
deception.  An  editorial  in  one  of  their  principal  news 
papers  contained  this  sentence  :  "  But  this  everlasting 
cant  of  devotion  to  the  Union,  accompanied  by  a  recom 
mendation  to  do  those  acts  that  must  necessarily  destroy 


184  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

it,  is  beyond  patient  endurance  from  a  people  not  abso 
lutely  confined  in  their  own  mad-houses/'  It  was  clear 
to  them,  at  the  outset,  that  nullification  was  piecemeal 
secession  and  rebellion. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  in  South  Carolina  when 

Congress  assembled  on  the  first  Monday  of  December, 

1831.     On  the   6th  the  President's   annual 

Jack  son's 

message  of  message  was  laid  before  the  two  Houses.  It 
1831,  on  t  h  e  contained  a  much  more  distinct  and  decided 
recommendation  for  the  reduction  of  duties 
than  he  had  ever  before  expressed.  He  called  attention 
to  the  prospect  of  the  early  extinguishment  of  the  pub 
lic  debt,  when  the  annual  instalment  to  the  sinking 
fund  would  be  no  longer  needed,  and  recommended  that 
Congress  should  at  once  deal  with  the  question  of  the 
reduction  of  the  duties  to  a  point  where  they  would  pro 
duce  no  more  revenue  than  would  be  necessary  for  an 
economical  administration  of  the  Government.  He 
farther  recommended  the  readjustment  of  the  duties 
with  a  view  to  equal  justice  to  all  national  interests,  and 
said  that  the  interests  of  both  merchant  and  manufact 
urer  required  that  the  change  should  be  prospective. 

There  was  no  suggestion  in  the  message  of  increasing 
the  expenditures  of  the  Government  for  internal  im 
provements,  or  for  any  other  purpose.  The  plain  in 
ference  from  the  message  was  that  by  March  4th,  1833, 
the  debt  would  all  be  paid,  and  the  revenue  could  then  be 
reduced  by  ten  or  twelve  millions  a  year,  and  should  be. 

This  was  all  that  the  South  Carolinians  had  asked, 
and  it  would  have  been  the  height  of  folly  for  them  to 
have  pursued  extraordinary  means  to  relieve  themselves 
when  regular  methods  promised  at  last  a  prospect  of 
success.  This  part  of  the  message  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures,  of  which  ex-President 
John  Quincy  Adams  was  then  chairman.  Mr.  Adams 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      185 

had  far  more  moderate  views  in  regard  to  the  tariff  than 
the  majority  of  his  protectionist  brethren,  and  it  could 
be  reasonably  hoped  that  he  would  report  a  bill  from  his 
committee  wliich  would  be  conciliatory  in  character. 
The  Southerners  were  not  quite  willing,  however,  to  rest 
entirely  on  his  own  good-will,  and  raised  the  contention 
that  the  subject  of  the  tariff  ought  to  be  referred  either 
to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  or  to  the  Commit 
tee  on  Commerce,  since  the  power  to  impose  The  queg. 
duties  was  incident  either  to  the  raising  of  proper f 
revenue  or  to  the  regulation  of  commerce.  Jmme  li 
The  result  of  the  contention  was  that  a  reso-  Bills- 
lution  was  introduced,  and  taken  up,  requesting  the  Com 
mittee  on  Commerce  to  make  a  report  on  the  working 
of  the  tariff,  and  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means 
was  allowed  to  report  a  tariff  bill,  which  was  read  twice 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House. 

The  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  pro 
vided  for  the  reduction  of  the  duty  to  twelve  and  one- 
half  per  centum  ad  valorem  on  all  articles  ;      _ 
on  some,  immediately  and  totally,  but  on  the  from  the  com- 

,.'',  i       11  -,    •  mittee     on 

more  important  articles  gradually,  and  in  a  ways  and 
period  of  a  little  more  than  three  years. 

This  was  undoubtedly  an  ill-digested  measure.  It 
was  not  only  a  radical  reduction  of  duties,  but  it  was  an 
indiscriminate  reduction.  Mr.  McDumVs  own  com 
mittee  were  not  unanimous  in  recommending  it. 

On  May  23rd  Mr.  Adams  reported  the  bill  from  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures.  Mr.  Adams  based  his 
bill  on  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  The  Tariff 
Treasury,  of  December  7th,  1831,  and  pro-  gin  of  1332 

,     ,,J  '.  fromtheCom- 

posed  the  repeal  of  the  existing  system  of  mittee  on 

1    .     .        ,         ,   L  .  .  J  Manufactures. 

minimal  valuations  and  the  duty  on  coarse 

wool  altogether,  and  a  slight  reduction  of  the   duties 

on  fine  wool  and  woollen  fabrics. 


186  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

It  was  calculated  that  Mr.  Adams's  bill  would  reduce 
the  receipts  from  the  customs  by  about  five  or  six  mill 
ions  of  dollars,  leaving  thus  still  an  annual  surplus  of 
some  five  or  six  millions  after  the  extinguishment  of 
the  debt. 

Mr.  McDuffiVs  bill  was  taken  up  first  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House.  Mr.  McDuffie  defended  it  with 
his  argument,  already  stated,  that  the  producers  of  the 
exports  pay  finally  the  duties  on  the  imports  for  which 
the  exports  are  exchanged  in  the  foreign  markets,  and 
cited  recent  utterances  of  Professor  Senior,  the  noted 
political  economist  of  Oxford  University,  in  support  of 
his  position.  He  could  not,  however,  convince  the  House, 
and  his  bill  was  finally  disposed  of  in  less  than  a  week. 
Mr.  Adams's  bill  was  then  taken  up.  It  was  understood 
as  proposing  a  slight  reduction  all  around.  It  was  in 
tended  to  do  so.  But  Mr.  McDuffie  made  an  argument 
against  it,  in  which  he  undertook  to  prove,  and  declared 
that  he  did  prove,  that  it  discriminated  still  further 
against  the  South,  and  imposed  a  heavier  burden  upon 
that  section  than  it  was  even  then  bearing,  grievous  as 
that  was.  He  declared,  finally,  that  he  would  not  sub 
mit  to  it. 

The  House,  however,  was  neither  convinced  by  his 

argument   nor  intimidated  by  his  threat.      It   passed 

Paesage  of  the  bil1  on  Jnne  28th>  bJ  a  large  majority,  a 

1832Tbayriith0e    m^'0rity  °f  m°re  than  *WO  to  One. 

rcsentatfve?p"       Meanwhile  the  Senate  had  been  occupying 

itself  with  an  exhaustive  discussion  of  the 

principle  of  the  tariff.     On  January  9th,  1832,  Mr.  Clay 

introduced  the  famous  resolution  for  making  the  tariff 

upon  articles  coming  into  competition  with  home  manu- 

factures  a  system  of  permanent  high  duties,  and  for 

abolishing,  or  greatly  reducing,  the  duties  upon  all  other 

'    articles. 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AKD  PROTECTION      187 

Senator  Hayne  immediately  grasped  the  import  of  this 
proposition.  He  declared  that  it  marked  a  new  era  in 
the  tariff  system.  He  demonstrated  that  down  to  that 
time  the  protection  of  manufactures  had  been  regarded 
by  all  persons  and  parties  as  a  temporary  policy  and  had 
been  justified  as  such,  while  this  proposition  looked  to 
its  establishment  as  a  permanent  principle  of  the  policy 
of  the  country,  which  neither  revenue  surplus  nor  man 
ufacturing  experience  should  affect. 

Mr.  Clay,  who  had  himself  spoken  of  protection  before 
this  as  only  a  temporary  policy,  acknowledged  the  truth 
of  Colonel  Hayne's  criticism,  and  proceeded,  ««TheAmer- 
in  his  famous  three  days'  speech,  to  develop  ican  system-" 
the  arguments  for  the  permanent  protective  system,  the 
"American  System,"  as  he  termed  it,  which  made  up 
the  text-book  for  the  later  supporters  of  that  system. 
His  idea  was  simply  to  collect  the  duties  from  those 
foreign  products  which  corne  into  competition  in  the 
home  markets  with  domestic  products,  and  prevent  the 
accumulation  of  a  Treasury  surplus  by  fixing  the  duties 
so  high  in  rate  as  to  make  them  largely  prohibitory.  As 
we  have  seen,  this  idea  had  been  already  foreshadowed 
in  one  of  President  Jackson's  earlier  messages.  It  now 
received  its  complete  formulation  and  its  economic 
justification. 

But  it  was  a  sad  prospect  for  the  South.  The  South 
had  looked  forward  to  the  extinguishment  of  the  debt  as 
necessarily  bringing  in  its  train  the  decrease  of  duties  to 
the  gross  amount  of  at  least  ten  millions  of  dollars  per 
annum,  and  now  it  was  called  upon  to  consider  the  plan 
for  a  decrease  of  revenue  by  an  increase  of  duties.  It 
is  hardly  astonishing  that  the  disappointment  should 
have  been  bitter,  and  that  passionate  men  should  have 
thought  of  resistance  to  what  appeared  to  them  so 
grievously  unjust. 


188  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

The  Senate  referred  Mr.  Clay's  resolution,  together 
with  an  amendment  to  it,  proposed  by  Colonel  Hayne, 
for  a  general  reduction  of  duties,  to  its  Committee  on 
Manufactures.  The  committee  reported  a  bill  based  on 
Mr.  Clay's  principle.  The  Constitution  does  not,  how 
ever,  allow  the  Senate  to  originate  a  bill  for  raising 
revenue,  and  the  majority  of  the  Senators  voted  to  lay 
the  bill  on  the  table,  and  await  the  movements  in  the 
House. 

On  June  29th  the  House  bill  appeared  in  the  Senate, 
and  was  referred  by  that  body  to  its  Committee  on 

The  bill  in  Manufactures.  On  July  2nd  Mr.  Dickerson 
the  senate.  reported  from  this  committee  the  House  bill, 
with  a  series  of  amendments  to  it,  proposed  by  the  com 
mittee.  These  amendments  were  all  in  the  direction  of 
Mr.  Clay's  idea,  and  were  adopted  by  the  Senate.  The 
bill  as  thus  amended  passed  the  Senate  on  July  9th,  the 
Senators  from  every  Northern  Commonwealth  voting 
for  it,  and  those  from  every  Southern  Commonwealth, 
except  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  Louisiana,  voting 
against  it.  Missouri  was  hardly  to  be  then  classed  as  a 
Southern  Commonwealth.  Louisiana  was  won  by  an 
increase  of  the  duty  on  sugar.  And  only  one  of  the 
Senators  from  Kentucky  voted  against  the  measure. 

The  House  of  Representatives  refused  to  concur  in 
some  of  the  amendments,  and  the  measure  was  sent  to 

The  bill  as  a  Conference  committee.  This  committee 
finally  passed,  patched  up  a  compromise,  and  the  bill  be 
came  a  law  on  July  14th. 

On  the  whole,  it  was  doubtful  if  the  bill,  with  the 
changes  imposed  upon  it  by  the  Senate,  would  prove  to 
be  any  relief  to  the  South.  Many  of  the  Southerners 
claimed  that  it  would  increase  the  burden  upon  that 
section,  while  none  of  them  appeared  to  think  it  would 
lighten  it. 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  AND  PROTECTION      189 

What  now  were  the  planters  to  do  ?  They  had  waited 
for  the  extinguishment  of  the  debt,  and  for  the  period 
when  the  Treasury  would  no  longer  require  the  sixteen 
millions  of  dollars  per  annum  applied  to  its  cancella 
tion,  hoping  for  a  general  reduction  of  duties  by  some 
thing  like  this  sum  as  the  necessary  result ;  but  instead 
of  this  they  were  now  offered,  as  a  final  solution  of  the 
tariff  question,  a  slight  reduction  of  duties  on  articles 
coming  into  competition  with  home  products,  a  prac 
tical  abolition  of  the  duties  on  those  which  did  not  come 
into  competition  with  home  products,  and  an  increase  in 
the  expenses  of  the  Government  to  the  amount  of  the 
receipts  whatever  they  might  be.  This  was  to  be  the 
permanent  policy  of  the  country,  the  "  American  Sys 
tem." 

They  were  indeed  wofully  disappointed,  not  to  say 
deceived.  There  seemed  now  no  further  hope  of  aid 
to  them,  from  either  Congress,  the  President,  or  the 
courts.  They  must  yield  unconditionally  and  hope 
lessly,  or  resist  the  execution  of  the  law.  The  former 
course  was  too  much  to  expect  from  the  proud  barons  of 
South  Carolina.  •  The  only  question  was  whether  some 
legal  basis  for  the  resistance  could  be  found,  or  whether 
it  must  take  on  the  form  of  rebellion.  We  have  already 
considered  Calhoun's  doctrine  of  nullification,  and  his 
claim  that  it  was  a  constitutional  remedy ;  it  now  re 
mains  for  us  to  trace  briefly  the  history  of  the  attempt 
to  apply  it.  Before,  however,  we  can  do  this  intelli 
gently,  we  must  consider  the  other  political  develop 
ments  of  the  year  1832,  occasioned  chiefly  by  the  presi 
dential  election  of  that  year,  but  affecting  directly  or  in 
directly  the  attitude  of  the  Administration  toward 
events  in  South  Carolina,  and  the  attitude  of  Congress 
toward  the  President  in  dealing  with  nullification. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  UNITED   STATES  BANK  AND    THE    PRESIDENTIAL 
CONTEST   OF   1832 

Jackson  and  the  Bank  in  his  First  Annual  Message— Jackson's  Re 
lations  to  the  Portsmouth  Branch  of  the  Bank— Jackson's 
Opposition  in  Principle  to  the  Bank— The  Political  Science  of 
the  Constitution  of  1787 — Western  Democracy — The  West  and 
the  "  Money  Power  "  of  the  East—"  States'  rights  "  and  the 
Bank  —  The  Case  of  Brown  and  Maryland  —  Democracy  and 
Socialism — Benton's  Attack  on  the  Bank — Benton  Repulsed — 
Jackson  and  Benton— The  Bank  and  the  People— The  Exist 
ence  of  the  Bank  made  a  Political  Issue— Jackson's  Second 
Attack  on  the  Bank— Jackson's  Plan  for  a  Bank — Benton's 
Resolution  against  the  Re-charter  of  the  Bank— Jackson's 
Challenge  to  make  the  Continued  Existence  of  the  Bank  the 
Issue  in  the  Campaign  of  1832— The  Challenge  Accepted— The 
Bank's  Petition  for  Re  charter— Benton's  Charge  of  Illegal 
Practices— Passage  of  the  Bill  for  Re-charter — The  Veto  of  the 
Bank  Bill— The  Bank  and  Foreign  Powers— The  Bank  and 
the  West— The  Bank  and  the  Rich— Structure  and  Powers  of 
the  Bank  —  Jackson  on  Executive  Independence — Von  Hoist's 
Criticism  of  the  Veto  Message — The  President's  Real  Meaning. 

IK  his  first  annual  message,  that  of  December  8th, 
1829,  President  Jackson  began  his  war  upon  the  United 
Jackson  and  States  Bank.  He  declared  in  it  that  the  con- 
w!fiStISm£  stitutionality  and  expediency  of  the  law  creat- 
ai  message.  jng  fae  Bank  were  we^  questioned  by  a  large 
portion  of  the  people;  and  that  its  failure  to  establish  a 
sound  and  uniform  currencyj  the  great  end  of  its  ex 
istence,  must  be  admitted  by  all. 


THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  191 

Basing  themselves  chiefly  upon  an  individual  report 
made  by  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  on  May  14th,  1832,  in 
regard  to  the  condition  of  the  Bank,  and  upon 

Jackson's 

documents  referred  to  m  that  report,  recent  relations  to 
historians  attribute  President  Jackson's  first  mouth  branch 
attack  upon  the  United  States  Bank  to  a  per 
sonal  feud  between  his  friends  in  New  Hampshire  and 
Mr.  Webster's  friends  there. 

Senator  Levi  Woodbmy,  of  New  Hampshire,  the 
leader  of  the  Jackson  party  in  New  Hampshire,  endeav 
ored,  in  the  summer  of  1829,  to  have  Jeremiah  Mason, 
Mr.  Webster's  great  friend,  removed  from  the  pres 
idency  of  the  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank  at  Ports 
mouth,  N.  H.,  and  Isaac  Hill,  another  New  Hampshire 
friend  of  the  President,  attempted  at  the  same  time  to 
have  the  United  States  pension  agency,  connected  with 
the  Portsmouth  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank,  re 
moved  to  Concord,  and  connected  with  a  little  bank 
there  of  which  Hill  had  been  president,  and  in  which  he 
was  still  interested.  Jackson's  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  Mr.  Ingham,  asked  Mr.  Biddle,  the  president  of  the 
United  States  Bank,  to  have  Mason  removed,  and  his  Sec 
retary  of  War,  Mr.  Eaton,  ordered  Mason  to  transfer  the 
pension  agency  to  Hill's  bank  in  Concord.  Mr.  Biddle 
looked  into  the  matter,  and  being  convinced  that  the 
whole  thing  was  a  political  scheme,  refused  to  have 
Mason  removed  from  office,  and  prevented  the  execution 
of  Eaton's  order  in  regard  to  the  transfer  of  the  pension 
agency. 

These  are,  very  briefly  stated,  the  facts  upon  which 
some  of  the  American  historians  found  the  theory  that 
Jackson,  entertaining  no  opposition  in  principle  to  the 
Bank  at  the  beginning  of  his  Administration,  became 
so  enraged  at  its  managers,  because  of  their  success  in 
these  petty  bouts  with  his  Cabinet  officers,  that  he  re- 


192  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

solved  upon  its  destruction.  The  treatment  which 
Adams  and  Clay  had  received  at  the  hands  of  Jackson 
and  his  friends  from  1824  onward  had  led  them  to  feel 
that  Jackson's  whole  nature  was  full  of  personal  rancor,, 
and  that  he  could  see  nothing  except  from  a  personal 
point  of  view.  There  is  little  doubt  that  this  feeling 
largely  determined  Adams's  ideas  of  Jackson's  attitude 
in  the  Bank  question,  and  that  the  historians  have  writ 
ten  the  account  of  the  Bank  controversy  under  the  in 
fluence  of  Adams's  representations. 

There  is  undoubtedly  some  truth  in  this  view  of  the 
matter,  but  it  is  far  from  being  the  whole  truth.  It  is 
Jackson's  not  even  that  part  of  the  truth  which  is 
$\S  to  most  valuable  to  the  student  of  American 

Bank.  history.  There  was  an  opposition  in  prin 
ciple  to  the  United  States  Bank,  as  well  as  a  personal 
conflict  between  leaders  in  regard  to  it.  That  oppo 
sition  in  principle  was  the  opposition  of  et  States'  rights  " 
democracy  to  centralized  privilege. 

In  all  political  systems  there  is  a  political  science  as 
well  as  a  public,  or  constitutional,,  law.  The  political 
science  of  a  state  is  based  chiefly  upon  the  actual  social 
conditions  and  relations  of  its  population,  and  its  pub 
lic  or  constitutional  law  ought  to  be  based  upon  its 
political  science.  In  fact,  however,  we  seldom  see 
social  conditions,  political  theory,  and  public  law  in  a 
state  of  perfect  harmony.  It  is  the  prime  problem  of 
political  and  legal  progress  to  work  out  this  great  re 
sult. 

The  political  science  or  theory  upon  which  the  Con 
stitution  of  1787  was  founded  was  thoroughly  English. 
The  political  ^  recognized  social  distinctions,  and  its  most 
constitution  fundamental  principle  was  compromise  be- 
ofiT87.  tween  conflicting  interests.  It  was  substan 

tially  in  harmony  with  social  conditions,  on  the  one  side, 


THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  193 

and  was  fairly  expressed  through  the  Constitution  of 
1787,  on  the  other.  Without  the  interposition  of  other 
forces  it  would  have  made  out  of  the  'United  States  a  new 
England.  But  French  political  science  had  already 
gained  a  foothold  in  the  country.  It  was  contained  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  its  prime  postulate 
was  ' '  the  equality  of  all  men."  It  did  not  then  comport 
with  the  social  condition  of  the  country,  and  the  Consti 
tution  did  not  make  its  principle  into  positive  law.  It 
was,  therefore,  at  the  beginning,  abstract,  and  theoretical. 
The  man  who  taught  it,  however,  became  President,  and 
the  party  which  embraced  it  became  the  governing  party. 
But  their  practice  was  not  made  consistent  with  their 
theory,  and  could  not  be,  so  long  as  the  social  conditions 
of  the  country  contradicted  their  theory.  It  was  the  set 
tlement  of  the  country  west  of  the  Alleghanies  which 
first  created  social  conditions  in  harmony  with  their 
theory.  The  distinction  between  master  and  slave  was 
not  permitted  to  enter  the  larger  portion  of  it  ;  the  dis 
tinction  between  the  rich  and  the  poor  could  not  at  first 
exist,  or  be,  for  many  years,  developed  ;  and  the  distinc 
tion  between  the  cultivated  and  the  ignorant  was  likewise 
obliged  to  remain  long  in  abeyance  ;  while  the  dangers 
and  the  hardships  of  frontier  life  developed,  speedily,  a 
strong  sense  of  self-reliance  and  self-esteem.  General 
equality  and  practical  self-help  were  the  first  social  re 
sults  of  the  levelling  experiences  of  the  camp,  the  wilder 
ness,  and  the  prairie.  With  such  influences  operating 
upon  such  characters  as  undertook  the  making  of  the 
West,  the  most  adventurous  part  of  the  population  of 
the  East,  that  bold  and  boastful  Democracy  was  pro 
duced,  which  began  after  1820  to  make  itself  western 
powerfully  felt  in  modifying  the  original  con-  Democracy, 
servative  principles  of  the  institutions  of  the  country. 
Connect  with  these  new  social  conditions,  and  the  po- 
13 


194  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

litical  principles  evolved  out  of  them,  the  fact  that  the 
West,  like  all  new  countries,,  had  little  money  or  capital, 

The  west  and  was  a  constant  borrower  from  the  East, 
"money  ww-  in  order  to  furnish  itself  with  roads,  imple- 
er"oft  ast.  ments,  means  of  transportation,  and  manu 
factured  articles,  and  we  have  the  forces  and  the  inter 
ests  which  were  bound,  under  the  first  general  financial 
pressure,  to  make  an  onslaught  upon  the  "money  power 
and  privilege  "  of  the  East,  as  embodied  in  the  United 
States  Bank. 

The  "  States'  rights "  opposition  to  the  Bank  had 
been  aroused  more  than  a  decade  before  Jackson's  mes- 

••states'  sa£e  of  1839'  \The  Bank  and  its  branches 
ilgh-£8"i  and  were  the  sole  depositories  of  the  funds  of 

tne  Bank.  A 

the  Government.  By  refusing  to  accept  on 
deposit  the  bills  of  Commonwealth  banks  which  did  not 
redeem  their  bills  in  specie  on  demand,  the  Bank  could 
prevent  the  officers  of  the  Government  from  accepting 
such  bills  for  dues  to  the  Government.  The  Bank  used 
•  /  this  power  to  force  the  Commonwealth  banks  to  specie 
r><^  payment.  It  was  one  of  the  purposes  for  which  Con 
gress  created  the  Bank.  It  made  the  Bank,  however, 
very  unpopular  with  the  officers  and  stockholders  of 
the  banks  chartered  by  the  Commonwealths.  These 
persons  were,  as  a  rule,  men  of  influence  in  their  re 
spective  communities,  and  they  succeeded  in  persuading 
many  of  the  people  that  the  United  States  Bank  was  a 
centralized  monopoly,  and  was  using  its  powers  and 
privileges  to  oppress  the  institutions  of  the  Common 
wealths. 

In  1818  the  Legislatures  of  Ohio  and  Maryland  im 
posed  a  heavy  tax  on  the  branches  of  the  Bank  located 
within  their  respective  jurisdictions.  The  purpose  was 
to  drive  them  out.  The  Bank  resisted  payment,  and 
was  sustained  by  the  United  States  courts. 


THE    UNITED    STATES   BANK  195 

In  the  February  term  of  1819  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  decided  the  famous  case  of  Brown 
and  Maryland,  declaring  the  act  of  Congress  The  cage 
creating  the  Bank  constitutional,  and  the  Brown  and 
act  of  the  Maryland  Legislature  undertak 
ing  to  tax  it  unconstitutional.  Maryland  submitted  at 
once,  but  the  officers  of  the  government  of  Ohio  forced 
their  way  into  the  branch  of  the  Bank  in  that  State,  at 
Chillicothe,  and  took  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  out 
of  the  vault,  and  that  too  in  the  face  of  an  injunction 
issued  by  the  United  States  Circuit  Court.  The  direc 
tors  sued  the  officers  of  the  Commonwealth  for  trespass, 
and  the  Commonwealth  refused  the  use  of  its  jails  to 
confine  the  persons  arrested.  At  the  same  time  the 
Commonwealth  reduced  the  tax  to  ten  thousand  dollars, 
and  refunded  ninety  thousand,  and  finally  receded  en 
tirely  from  its  unlawful  demand. 

This  defeat  of  the  "  States'  rights"  attack,  and  the  ex 
cellent  management  of  the  Bank  by  Langdon  Cheves, 
and  then  by  Nicholas  Biddle,  seem  to  have  silenced  the 
complaints  against  the  Bank  from  1823  to  1828. 

It  was  during  this  period,  however,  that  the  "  State 
socialistic  "  characteristic  of  radical  democracy  received 
a  strong  development  in  the  Commonwealth  Democracy 
of  Kentucky,  through  the  relief  measures  anasociai- 
for  debtors  ;  which  measures  threatened  to 
destroy  the  constitutional  guarantees  of  private  prop 
erty.  The  "relief  party "  secured  the  Legislature  and 
the  executive  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  judiciary, 
however,  stood  out  against  them,  and  they  did  not  have 
the  necessary  two-thirds  majority  in  the  Legislature  to 
remove  the  judges.  The  Legislature,  however,  passed 
a  new  judiciary  act,  and  created  another  supreme  court 
of  the  Commonwealth.  This  scandal  of  judicial  anarchy 
existed  for  nearly  two  years,  when,  at  last,  in  1826,  the 


196  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

"  anti-relief  "  party  elected  a  majority  of  the  legislative 
members,  and  the  new  Legislature  repealed  the  act  es 
tablishing  the  new  court. 

Jackson's  friends  in  Kentucky  belonged  almost  ex 
clusively  to  the  "  relief  party,"  and  it  is  hardly  fanciful 
to  attribute  to  this  movement  in  Kentucky  some  influ 
ence  in  the  formation  of  Jackson's  ideas  in  regard  to 
the  United  States  Bank,  and  in  regard  to  his  plan  for  a 
Government  bank,  responsible  to  the  people  and  man 
aged  for  the  benefit  of  the  people. 

On  March  3rd,  1828,  Senator  Benton  began  his  warfare 

upon   the   Bank.     He  attacked   its   privilege  of   being 

the  depository  of  Government  monev.     He 

Benton's  at-  .         3  , -,      ,   , ,  ,,  .„. 

tack  on  the  claimed  that  there  were  two  or  three  millions 
of  dollars  of  Government  money  used  in 
loans  by  the  Bank,  which  earned  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year  of  interest,  all  of  which 
went  to  the  stockholders  of  the  Bank  and  none  of  it  to 
the  Government,  while  the  Government  was  all  the 
time  paying  interest  on  the  public  debt  and  taxing  the 
people  for  the  purpose.  He  wanted  to  take  the  surplus 
deposits  out  of  the  Bank  and  pay  a  part  of  the  public 
debt  with  them.  This  was  the  first  charge  of  the  West 
ern  Democracy  upon  privilege,  as  being  opposed  to  the 
principle  of  universal  equality. 

There  were,  however,  enough  practical  men  in  the 
Senate  who  considered  this  privilege  as  only  a  fair  com- 
Benton   re-  pensation  for  the   service   rendered  by  the 
pulsed.  Bank  to  the  Government  in  transporting  the 

Government  funds  without  any  specific  return  therefor, 
and  who  knew  that  it  is  not  good  banking  to  pay  inter 
est  on  deposits,  to  reject  Mr.  Benton's  resolution.  Ben- 
ton  repeated  his  motion  on  January  1st,  1829,  but  with 
no  greater  success. 
After  March  4th,  1829,  the  leadership  of  the  party  was 


THE    UNITED   STATES   BANK  197 

in  the  hands  of  the  President,  and  Benton  became  Jack 
son's  lieutenant  in  the  Senate.  There  had  been  per 
sonal  feuds  between  the  two  men,  but  they  jack8onand 
now  harmonized  politically,  and  in  no  point  Benton- 
did  that  harmony  become  more  complete  than  in  the 
war  against  the  Bank. 

It  is  probable  that  at  the  moment  of  his  accession  to 
power  Jackson  had  not  thought  out  the  relation  of  the 
democratic  principle  to  the  Bank,  but  he  undoubtedly 
felt  it,  and  the  feeling  guided  him. to  the  position  which 
he  assumed,  first  toward  the  questions  of  detail  in  the 
Bank's  policy  and  management,  and  then  toward  the 
general  question  of  its  existence.  The  controversy  be 
tween  his  Secretaries  and  the  Bank's  officers,  upon  which 
Mr.  Adams  laid  so  much  stress,  probably  precipitated 
matters,  but  the  crisis  would  have  developed  under  other 
circumstances  had  not  these  existed.  The  social  and 
political  forces  at  play  were  bound  to  bring  it  about 
under  one  issue  or  another.  It  may  have  astonished 
the  politicians  and  statesmen  of  the  East  then,  and  it 
may  astonish  the  casual  reader  of  American  history  now, 
that  Jackson  attacked  the  question  of  the  future  exist 
ence  of  the  Bank  in  his  first  annual  message,  but  there 
is  nothing  surprising  in  it  to  the  careful  student  of 
American  history,  who  comprehends  the  development 
of  the  democratic  spirit  of  the  West  during  the  third 
decade  of  the  century. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  President  was  correct  in 
saying,  as  he  did  in  his  message  of  1829,  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  people  questioned  the  constitu 
tionality  and  expediency  of  the  law  creating  andheth?pe£ 
the   Bank,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  Bank   ple' 
was  not  considered  by  all  to  have  failed  in  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  sound  and  uniform  currency.      It  is  far 
more  probable  that  the  people  generally  acquiesced  in 


198  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

the  decision  of  the  Court  pronouncing  the  Bank  law 
constitutional,  and  that  the  majority  of  the  people,  at 
that  moment,,  regarded  it  as  ^ood  policy,  and  believed 
that  the  Bank  had  fairly  fu Hilled  the  purpose  of  its 
creation.  The  President  was  simply  assuming  that  the 
people  thought  as  he  did,  as  democratic  leaders  usually 
do.  Taken  in  that  sense  there  was  nothing  extraordi 
nary  in  what  he  said.  He  had  a  right  to  disagree  in 
opinion  with  the  Court,  and  to  say  so,  and  to  make  any 
recommendation  to  Cpngress  which  seemed  wise  to  him, 
in  regard  to  the  re-charter  of  the  Bank.  That  an  ex 
piring  law  is  constitutional  is  not  always  a  convincing 
argument  for  its  re-enactment. 

The  President's  criticism  occasioned  an  investigation 

The  exist-  into  the  principle  and  status  of  the  Bank, 

Sank 'made1  a  an^  brought  the  Bank  question  into  the  poli- 

political  issue.    ticg  Qf  the  da^ 

The  Committee  on  Finance  of  the  Senate,  and  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House,  made 
reports,  in  March  and  April  of  1830,  vigorously  de 
fending  the  constitutionality,  the  expediency,  and  the 
management  of  the  Bank,  and  demonstrating  the  great 
political  and  financial  dangers  of  such  a  Government 
bank  as  the  President  suggested.  The  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  was,  it  will  be  remem 
bered,  Mr.  McDuffie,  the  political  economist  of  the 
slavery  interest.  To  his  mind  the  Bank  question  had 
evidently  little  connection  with  the  slavery  question. 

The  President,  however,  returned  to  the  attack  in 
his  message  of  December  10th,  1830.  He  also  presented, 
in  this  message,  an  elaboration  of  his  idea  of 
second  8att?ck  a  Government  bank.  His  proposition  was 
ank'  for  a  bank  as  a  branch  of  the  Treasury  De 
partment,  based  on  the  deposits  of  the  funds  of  the 
Government  and  also  on  those  made  bv  individuals,  but 


THE    UNITED    STATES    BANK  199 

having  no  power  to  issue  notes  or  make  loans  or  purchase 
property.  Its  chief  purpose  would  be  to  do  the  business 
of  the  Government,  and  its  expenses  might  be  met  by 
selling  exchange  to  private  persons  at  a  small  rate. 

The  President  thought  that  this  scheme  avoided  all 
the  objections  to  the  existing  Bank,  and  yet  preserved 
all  of  the  latter's  advantages.  It  would  re 
quire  no  charter  of  incorporation,  would  plan  for  a 
have  neither  stockholders,  nor  debtors,  nor  bank" 
property,  would  require  few  officers,  and  would  leave  to 
the  Commonwealths  the  creation  of  their  own  local  paper 
currency  through  their  own  banks,  while  the  new  Gov 
ernment  bank  would  be  able  to  check  the  issues  of  the 
Commonwealth  banks  through  its  power  to  refuse  to  take 
their  bills  on  deposit  or  for  exchange,  unless  they  re 
deemed  them  with  specie.  In  a  sentence,  his  doctrine 
now  was  that  banking  must  be  left  as  far  as  possible  to 
Commonwealth  law,  and  that  such  powers  as  the  general 
Government  had  received  from  the  Constitution  over 
the  subject  should  be  exercised  by  the  Government,  if 
at  all,  through  its  own  officials,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people,  and  not  be  conferred  as  privileges  upon  a  cor 
poration  of  private  persons,  to  be  exercised  for  their 
private  gain.  This  will  be  at  once  recognized  as  a  dem 
ocratic,  "  States'  rights,"  socialistic  scheme  in  the  essen 
tial  elements  of  its  composition. 

Before  the  report  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the 
Senate  upon  this  part  of  the  message  was  presented 
Senator  Benton  offered  a  resolution,  on  Feb-  Benton,8 
ruary  2nd,  1831,  which  provided  that  the  resolution 
charter  of  the  Bank  ought  not  to  be  renewed,  charter  of  the 
In  his  speech  supporting  the  resolution  the  * 
senator  developed  the  whole  "  States'  rights/'  socialistic, 
democratic  argument  against  the  Bank  with  great  elab 
oration,  both  in  principle  and  in  detail. 


200  THE    MIDDLE   PERIOD 

It  is  true  that  Benton  did  not  go  so  far  as  Jackson  in 
the  socialistic  direction.  He  said  that  he  was  willing 
to  vote  for  the  President's  Government  bank  scheme, 
since  it  would  substitute  for  the  existing  Bank  an  insti 
tution  which  would  be  divested  of  the  essential  features 
of  a  bank,  the  power  to  make  loans  and  discounts,  but 
that  he  would  prefer  to  see  the  charter  of  the  Bank  ex 
pire  without  any  substitute  being  created  for  it. 

The  Senate  was  not,  however,  convinced  by  Mr.  Ben- 
ton's  argument,  and  refused  to  allow  him  to  introduce 
his  resolution. 

In  his  message  of  December  6th,  1831,  President  Jack 
son  referred  to  what  he  had  said  in  former  messages 


cha5ecnkl°nto  concerning  the  Bank,  and  closed  his  allusion 

make  toe  con- 

enceeco  f  The  ing  thus  conscientiously  discharged   a   con- 


eiauKBuirs  v^u±i^ci juiiig  unc  jutuiK,  a-nu  cioseti  nis  allusion 
make  toe  con-  with  the  following  significant  words  :  "Hav- 

tinned     pvisf:-     •  ,  t 


stitutional  duty,  I  deem  it  proper,  on  this 
1832-    occasion,  without   a  more   particular  refer 
ence  to  the  views  of  the  subject  then  expressed,  to  leave 
it  for  the  present  to  the  investigation  of  an  enlightened 
people  and  their  representatives/' 

This  language  certainly  seemed  to  imply  that  the 
President  would,  so  far  as  he  was  able,  make  the  ques- 

The  chai-  tion  of  the  re-charter  of  tne  Bank  one  of  the 
ijnge  accept-  issues  of  the  election  campaign  of  1832. 
His  opponents  so  interpreted  him,  and  they 
gladly  accepted  the  challenge,  for  they  believed  the 
Bank  to  be  popular  with  the  voters.  They  thought  that 
the  Senators  and  Eepresentatives  in  Congress,  a  ma 
jority  of  whom  favored  the  Bank,  truly  represented  the 
views  of  their  constituencies,  and  they  calculated  to  be 
able  to  split  the  Democratic  party  itself  on  the  issue. 

The  president  and  directors  of  the  Bank,  however, 
were  most  reluctant  to  have  the  existence  of  the  Bank 
made  a  party  question.  The  leaders  of  the  National 


THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  201 

Republicans,  on  the  other  hand,  insisted  upon  it.  Clay, 
who,  six  days  after  the  appearance  of  the  President's 
message,  had  been  nominated  by  a  national  convention 
at  Baltimore  as  the  candidate  of  the  National  Republi 
cans  for  the  presidency,  was  certain  that  under  the  is 
sue  of  the  renewal  of  the  Bank's  charter  Jackson  would 
be  signally  defeated.  The  Bank's  officers  yielded  to  his 
advice,  enforced  by  that  of  Mr.  Webster,  and  on  Janu 
ary  9th,  1832,  sent  in  the  memorial  for  a  re-charter. 

Senator  Dallas  presented  the  memorial,  but  said  that  he 
personally  had  discouraged  its  presentation  at  that  junc 
ture  out  of  apprehension  that  the  question 
of  the  re-charter  of  the  Bank  might,  at  the  pJiWon^o'? 
moment,  be  drawn  into  real  or  imagined  con-  re-charter- 
flict  with  "  some  higher,  some  more  favorite,  some  more 
immediate  wish  or  purpose  of  the  American  people." 
Senator  Dallas  was  a  Bank  Democrat.  The  more  favorite 
wish  to  which  he  referred  was  the  re-election  of  Jackson, 
and  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  his  words  was  that 
the  Bank  Democrats  did  not  want  to  be  obliged  to  choose 
between  the  Bank  and  Jackson  at  the  next  election. 

The  Senate  referred  the  petition  for  re-charter  to  a 
committee  composed  of  Mr.  Dallas,  Mr.  Webster,  Mr. 
Ewing,  Mr.  Hayne,  and  Mr.  Johnston. 

Before  the  committee   made   its   report  Mr.  Benton 
made  another  attack  upon  the    Bank.     This  time  he 
charged  it  with  illegal  practices   in  issuing 
drafts  which  passed  as  currency.     The  Sen-  Ch?4e  of  m'e- 
ate,  however,  repelled  the  attack  and  refused  gal  Practices- 
to  allow  Mr.  Benton  to  introduce  his  resolution  declar 
ing  such  drafts  illegal. 

On  March  13th  Mr.  Dallas  brought  in  the  bill  from 
his  committee  for  the  re-charter  of  the  Bank 
for  fifteen  years  from  the  expiration  of  its  the  biiffor  re- 
existing  charter  in  1836.  charter. 


202       .  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

While  the  bill  was  passing  through  the  Senate  a 
demonstration  against  the  Bank  was  in  progress  in  the 
House.  Mr.  Clayton,  of  Georgia,  an  enemy  of  the  Bank, 
secured  the  appointment  of  a  committee  by  the  Speaker 
of  the  House,  Mr.  Stevenson,  another  enemy  of  the 
Bank,  to  inquire  into  the  affairs  of  the  Bank,  and  make 
report  thereof  to  the  House.  A  majority  report  was  of 
fered  by  Mr.  Clayton  severely  criticising  the  Bank,  and 
a  minority  report  by  Mr.  McDuffie  defending  the  Bank 
most  ably  and  vigorously,  and,  if  we  may  judge  from 
the  vote  of  the  House  upon  the  Senate  bill  for  re-charter, 
which  had  passed  the  Senate,  and  appeared  at  this  mo 
ment  in  the  House  for  concurrence,  most  successfully. 
The  House  passed  the  Senate  bill,  with  a  few  immaterial 
changes,  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  seven  to  eighty- 
five. 

The  National  Republicans  felt  sure  that  they  had 
driven  Jackson  into  a  blind  alley.  But  the  "  Old  Hero" 
stood  his  ground  and  hurled  a  veto  at  the  bill,  which  both 
killed  it  and  conquered  the  National  Republican  party 
in  the  election  of  1832  with  its  own  chosen  weapon. 

The  veto  message  was  a  curious  pot-pourri  of  strength 
and  weakness,  of  sound  statesmanship  and  cheap  dema- 
The  veto  of  gogism,  of  shrewd  politics  and  silly  common- 
the  Bank  Bill.  p}aces<  \ye  mav  arrange  its  score  of  points 
tinder  five  principal  heads,  or  rather  ends  in  view.  The 
first  was  the  attempt  to  rouse  the  national  spirit  against 
the  Bank,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  some  eight  millions 
of  dollars''  worth  of  the  stock  was  in  the  hands  of  foreign 
ers.  The  President  made  out  that  this  was  a  great 
danger  to  the  United  States,  both  in  war  and  peace.  In 
war,  he  said,  the  Bank  would  be  an  internal  enemy, 
more  terrible  than  the  army  and  navy  of  the  external 
foe.  Just  how  the  possession  of  the  certificates  of  stock 
by  foreigners,  whose  money,  which  had  been  paid  for 


THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  203 

them,  was  in  the  United  States,  and  therefore  under  the 
control  of  the  United  States  Government,  could  endan 
ger  the  United  States  in  case  of  a  war  between  the 
United  States  and  the  country  or  countries  to  which 
these  foreign  stockholders  belonged,  the 
President  failed  to  explain.  It  would  seem  and  foreign 
to  the  ordinary  mind  that  this  would  be  an  pov 
advantage  to  the  United  States,  in  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  would  have  within  its  grasp  a  part 
of  the  money  power  of  the  enemy.  Moreover,  the  Bank 
law  prevented  the  foreign  stockholders  from  voting  in 
the  election  of  the  directors  of  the  Bank.  How  these 
stockholders  could  possibly  exercise  any  hostile  influence 
then,  except  by  selling  their  stock  to  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  taking  the  money  which  they  might 
receive  for  it  out  of  the  country,  was  not  only  not  ex 
plained  but  is  inexplicable. 

The  second  object  was  apparently  the  excitement  of 
the  West  against  the  East.  The  President  declared  that 
the  West  was  being  made  financially  tributary  The  Bank 
to  the  East  by  the  Bank.  He  presented  the  andtt>eWe8t. 
statistics  of  stockholding  and  interest-paying  throughout 
the  different  sections  of  the  country  in  proof  of  this  state 
ment.  He  affirmed  that  thirteen  millions  five  hun 
dred  and  twenty-two  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  the  stock 
was  owned  in  the  Northeastern  and  Middle  Common 
wealths,  that  five  millions  six  hundred  and  twenty- 
three  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  it  was  held  in  Virginia, 
the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia,  and  that  only  one  hundred 
and  forty  thousand  and  two  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  it 
was  held  in  the  nine  Western  Commonwealths  ;  while  one 
million  six  hundred  and  forty  thousand  and  forty- 
eight  dollars  of  the  profits  of  the  Bank  came  from  these 
Western  Commonwealths,  one  million  four  hundred 
and  sixty-three  thousand  and  forty-one  dollars  of  them 


204  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

from  the  Northeastern  and  Middle  Commonwealths,  and 
three  hundred  and  fifty-two  thousand  and  five  hundred 
and  seven  dollars  of  them  from  the  Southern  Common 
wealths.  This  seems  to  ordinary  intelligence  to  prove 
that  the  Bank  was  accommodating  Western  borrowers 
with  Eastern  money ;  and  as  the  Bank  was  limited  by 
its  charter  to  a  maximum  of  six  per  centum  interest  on 
its  loans,  it  seems  that  the  accommodation  was  being 
rendered  upon  quite  moderate  consideration.  But  the 
President  said  it  proved  that  the  "  Eastern  money  power  " 
was  oppressing  the  West,  and  the  West  was  quite  willing 
to  believe  anything  against  the  persons  or  institutions  to 
whom  or  to  which  it  owed  money. 

The  third  object  to  which  the  President  addressed 
himself  in  the  message  was  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
The  Bank  poor  to  the  proposition  that  the  Government 
and  the  rich.  was  favoring  the  rich  through  the  Bank.  The 
President  called  the  Bank  a  monopoly,  which  means 
privilege  conferred  by  Government  on  a  few  at  the  ex 
pense  of  the  many.  He  calculated  that  the  privilege  to 
be  granted  to  the  existing  stockholders  by  the  re-charter 
of  the  Bank  was  worth  seventeen  millions  of  dollars,  while 
the  bonus  which  they  would  be  required  to  pay  was  but 
three  millions.  Fourteen  millions  of  dollars  would  thus 
be  presented  by  the  Government  to  the  Bank,  which  sum 
the  Government  must  take  by  taxation  from  the  people. 
He  arrived  at  these  statistics  and  results  by  assuming 
that  the  Bank  stock,  after  the  re-charter  and  in  conse 
quence  of  it,  would  be  worth  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  for  one  hundred  par,  that  some  other  body 
of  stockholders  could  be  found  who  would  pay  seven 
teen  millions  for  the  charter,  and  that  the  money  thus 
acquired  from  the  supposed  stockholders  by  the  Gov 
ernment  would  effect  the  remission  of  just  so  much 
taxation  upon  the  people.  The  President  saw  also, 


THE   UNITED    STATES   BANK  205 

with  Senator  Benton,  that  the  use  of  the  Government 
deposits  by  the  Bank  was  a  source  of  income  to  the 
stockholders  at  the  popular  expense.  And  he  de 
nounced  the  feature  in  the  new  bill,  which  allowed  the 
Commonwealth  banks  to  pay  their  indebtedness  to  any 
branch  of  the  United  States  Bank  with  the  notes  of  any 
other  branch,  but  did  not  accord  the  same  privilege  to 
individuals,  as  favoring  the  rich  and  powerful  against 
the  poor  and  weak. 

The  entire  argumentation  in  this  part  of  the  message 
seems  extravagant  and  exaggerated,  to  say  the  least,  but 
it  sounded  convincing  and  sympathetic  to  the  masses. 
It  was  something  which  brought  the  question  home  to 
each  one  of  them,  and  made  it  appear  related  to  each 
one's  personal  interest.  The  statement  was  a  powerful 
vote-catcher.  It  took  wonderfully. 

The  fourth  proposition,  as  we  have  arranged  them, 
was  the  criticism  on  the  structure  and  powers  of  the 
Bank  provided  in  the  new  bill.  The  Presi- 

Structure 

dent  objected  to  the  unnecessarily  large  and  powers  of 
amount  of  the  capital  stock,  to  the  right  to  be 
given  the  Bank  to  locate  its  own  branches,  to,  the  power 
of  the  Government,  as  a  stockholder,  to  own  real  estate 
for  general  purposes,  and  to  the  poweXof  the  Bank  to 
coin  money,  as  he  called  the  power  J#T  issue  its  notes. 

The  final  division  of  the  messidge,  according  to  our 
arrangement,  contains  the  disquisition  upon  the  relation 
of  the  departments  of  the  Government  to  Jackgon  on 
each  other  in  operating  the  Constitution,  and  executive  in- 
the  relation  of  the  general  Government  to  the 
Commonwealths  in  regard  to  jurisdiction  over  the  busi 
ness  of  banking.  The  President  held,  upon  the  first  of 
these  points,  that  "if  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court/' 
in  the  case  of  McCulloch  and  Maryland,  "covered  the 
whole  ground  of  this  act,  it  ought  not  to  control  the  co- 


206  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ordinate  authorities  of  the  Government.  "The  Con 
gress,  the  Executive,  and  the  Court/'  he  said,  "  must 
each  for  itself  be  guided  by  its  own  opinion  of  the  Con 
stitution.  Each  public  officer  who  takes  an  oath  to  sup 
port  the  Constitution  swears  that  he  will  support  it  as 
he  understands  it,  and  not  as  it  is  understood  by  others. 
It  is  as  much  the  duty  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
of  the  Senate,  and  of  the  President,  to  decide  upon  the 
constitutionality  of  any  bill  or  resolution  which  may  be 
presented  to  them  for  passage  or  approval,  as  it  is  of  the 
Supreme  Judges  when  it  may  be  brought  before  them 
for  decision.  The  opinion  of  the  Judges  has  no  more 
authority  over  Congress  than  the  opinion  of  Congress 
has  over  the  Judges  ;  and,  on  that  point,  the  President 
is  independent  of  both.  The  authority  of  the  Supreme 
Court  must  not,  therefore,  be  permitted  to  control  the 
Congress  or  the  Executive  when  acting  in  their  legisla 
tive  capacities,  but  to  have  only  such  influence  as  the 
force  of  their  reasoning  may  deserve." 

The  President  also  said  that  he  could  have  furnished 
a  plan  for  a  bank,  had  it  been  requested  of  him,  which 
would  have  been  equal  to  all  the  duties  required  by 
the  Government,  a  plan  which  might  have  been  enacted 
by  Congress  without  straining  or  overstepping  its  pow 
ers,  and  without  infringing  the  powers  of  the  Common 
wealths  ;  and  he  complained  that  the  Bank,  as  an  agent 
of  the  Executive  Department,  should  be  thrust  upon  the 
Department  without  the  Department  being  consulted  as 
to  whether  it  needed  or  wanted  any  such  agent. 

One  of  the  most  celebrated  historians  of  American 
politics  has  indulged  in  a  very  severe  criticism  upon  this 
Von  Hoist's  part  of  the  message,  claiming  that  President 
the^vet^mes-  Jackson  virtually  asserted  therein  the  power 
sage.  t0  initiate  legislation,  full  co-ordination  with 

the  Houses  of  Congress  in  legislation,  and  an  indepen- 


THE   UNITED   STATES   BANK  207 

dence  of  Congress,  and  especially  of  the  Judiciary,  which, 
in  practice,  would  render  constitutional  law  an  impossi 
bility./  An  impartial  examination  of  the  text  of  the 
message  in  all  its  parts  will  hardly  warrant  any  such 
conclusions.;  It  is  quite  clear,  from  such 


an  examination,  that  the  President   meant  dent's  real 

meaning. 

that  in  the  formation  of  administrative  meas 
ures  by  the  Congressional  committees  in  charge  of  the 
same,  the  views  of  the  Administration  ought  to  be  ob 
tained  ;  that  the  President  is  not  limited  by  the  Con 
stitution  to  any  class  of  subjects  in  the  use  of  his  veto 
power  upon  proposed  legislation  ;  and  that  when  the 
Congress  and  the  President  are  legislating  they  are 
not  obliged  to  re-enact  a  law  simply  because  the  Ju 
diciary  have  declared  it  constitutional,  nor  even  pre 
vented  from  repealing  a  law,  simply  because  the  Judi 
ciary  have  declared  it  constitutional,  and  certainly  not 
prohibited  from  differing  in  opinion  with  the  Judiciary 
in  regard  to  the  constitutionality  of  any  law  already  on 
the  statute  book,  or  any  proposed  measure.  ;  Conserva 
tive  American  lawyers,  jurists,  and  publicists  approve  all 
of  this  as  not  only  the  letter  but  also  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution. 

Instead  of  destroying  the  Constitution  in  theory  by 
the  doctrine  of  this  veto,  it  looks  more  as  if  the  Presi 
dent  did  something  to  rescue  the  "  check  and  Jackson's 
balance"  system  of  government,  provided  in  lS?utive°nin- 
the  Constitution,  from  the  threatened  dom-  dePendence- 
ination  of  a  single  department  over  the  others  in  it. 
The  fact  is,  Congress  had  succeeded,  during  the  regime 
of  the  old  Republican  party  in  American  politics,  in 
winning  a  power  over  the  President  which  the  Consti 
tution  did  not  authorize.  The  members  of  Congress 
had  selected  all  of  the  Presidents,  from  Jefferson  to 
Jackson,  either  by  nomination  or  by  actual  election. 


208  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

The  machinery  constructed  by  the  Constitution  for  the 
election  of  the  President  was  wanting  in  its  most  neces 
sary  part.  It  contained  no  means  of  connection  between 
the  electoral  colleges  in  the  several  Commonwealths  in 
voting  for  the  President  and  Vice-President,  at  the  same 
time  that  it  required  a  majority  of  all  the  electoral  votes 
to  elect.  The  members  of  Congress  being  the  only  na 
tional  assembly  of  persons  in  the  country,  and  being  the 
chosen  political  leaders  from  the  different  Common 
wealths,  naturally  glided  into  the  habit  of  constituting 
themselves,  in  caucus,  the  connecting  link  between  the 
electoral  colleges  jn  the  several  Commonwealths,  and 
thus  the  Congressional  caucus,  or  caucuses,  as  the  case 
might  be,  became  the  nominating  body  or  bodies  to  the 
electoral  colleges.  If  the  caucus  nominated  anybody,  it 
left  to  the  electors  the  alternative  of  ratifying  the  nomi 
nation,  or  of  so  scattering  their  votes  as  to  give  no  person 
a  majority,  in  which  latter  case  the  election  of  the  Presi 
dent  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  caucus  did 
not  nominate  anybody,  the  electors  were  nearly  sure  to 
fail  to  unite  a  majority  of  their  votes  upon  the  same 
person,  in  which  case  again  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  obtained  possession  of  the  election.  With  such  an 
increasing  control  over  the  tenure  of  the  President,  it 
is  not  astonishing  that  the  Congress,  and  even  the  indi 
vidual  members  of  Congress,  exercised  an  ever  increas 
ing  control  over  his  acts  and  his  policy.  The  encroach 
ing  legislature  was  fast  developing  the  principle  of 
parliamentary  government  as  the  principle  of  the  Ameri 
can  system,  while  the  Constitution  provides  the  principle 
of  executive  independence  and  presidential  administra 
tion. 

Again,  the  judicial  department  had  appeared  to  as 
sume  the  position  that  it  possessed  the  supreme  inter 


THE   UNITED    STATES   BANK  209 

preting  power  of  the  Constitution  upon  every  point. 
It  had  not  then,  as  it  has  now.,  clearly  confined  itself  to 
questions  immediately  involving  questions  of  private 
rights.  It  appeared  to  be  claiming  jurisdiction  in  re 
gard  to  questions  primarily  of  political  science,  public 
law,  and  even  public  policy. 

The  President's  Bank  veto  called  a  halt  in  these  ten 
dencies,  and  exerted  an  influence  for  the  restoration  of 
executive  independence,  and  of  the  "  check  and  balance  " 
system,  provided  in  the  Constitution  ;  and  it  called  the 
people  into  a  closer  and  more  immediate  relation  to  the 
President  than  they  had  before  occupied,  in  that  the 
President  now  appealed  to  them  to  decide  the  question 
between  him  am?  the  Congress,  in  the  election  which  was 
then  about  to  take  place. 

These  were  the  political  principles  contained  in  the 
Bank  veto,  and  whether  they,  or  the  more  democratic 
principle  of  anti-monopoly,  or  the  more  socialistic  prin 
ciple  of  government  banking,  moved  the  masses,  cer 
tainly  they  were  profoundly  moved.  Had  the  popular 
vote  been  taken,  the  day  before  the  appearance  of  the 
veto,  upon  the  question  of  the  Bank's  re-charter,  it  is- al 
together  probable  that  an  overwhelming  majority  would 
have  been  found  in  its  favor.  Against  the  veto,  how 
ever,  no  sufficient  majority  could  be  united  in  Congress, 
and  when  the  results  of  the  presidential  election  became 
known,  it  was  found  that  Jackson  had  carried  the  coun 
try  with  him  in  the  unequal  contest,  and  that  the  peo 
ple  had  made  the  principles  of  the  Jacksonian  democ 
racy  the  ruling  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 
14 


CHAPTEK  X. 

NULLIFICATION 

The  Indian  Question  in  Georgia — The  Indian  Springs  Convention 
— The  Repudiation  of  the  Agreement — The  Controversy  be 
tween  the  Administration  and  Georgia — The  Creek  Convention 
of  1826 — The  Governor  of  Georgia  Repudiates  the  Convention 
of  1826— The  President  Submits  the  Matter  to  Congress— Geor 
gia  and  the  Cherokees — Jackson  and  the.  Indian  Question — 
Indian  Policy  before  Jackson — The  Case  of  the  Cherokee 
Nation — The  Case  of  Worcester  against  Georgia— The  Failure 
of  the  President  to  Execute  the  Decision  in  the  Worcester  Case 
— Jackson  and  Calhoun — The  Call  of  the  Convention  of  1832 
in  South  Carolina— The  Nullification  Ordinance — The  Ad 
dresses  Issued  by  the  Convention — The  Acts  of  the  Legislature 
of  South  Carolina  for  the  Execution  of  the  Ordinance — The 
Meaning  of  Nullification  as  Understood  by  the  Nullifiers— 
Jackson's  View  of  Nullification  —  The  President's  Procla 
mation  of  December  10th — The  President's  Military  Prepara 
tions — The  President's  Instructions  to  the  Customs  Officers  in 
South  Carolina — The  Popular  Approval  of  the  President's 
Course— The  Verplanck  Tariff  Bill— Governor  Hayne's  Coun 
ter-Proclamation — The  President's  Message  of  January  16th, 
1833  —  Calhoun's  Explanations  in  the  Senate  —  The  "Force 
Bill" — The  Postponement  of  the  Execution  of  Nullification — 
The  Compromise  Tariff — Mr.  Calhoun's  Support  of  Mr.  Clay's 
Bill — The  Opposition  to  the  Bill — Passage  of  the  "  Force  Bill" 
by  the  Senate — Passage  of  the  Compromise  Tariff  Bill  and  the 
*'  Force  Bill  "  by  Congress — The  Nullification  Ordinance  With 
drawn. 

BEFORE  nullification  was  resolved  upon  in  South  Car 
olina,  something  like  it  had  been  applied  in  Georgia. 


NULLIFICATION  211 

In   the   year   1802   Georgia  formally   ceded  the  lands 
claimed   by  the   Commonwealth   west   of    the  Chatta- 
hoochee  River  to  the  United  States  for  the 
sum  of  one   million  two  hundred  and  fifty  question0  TS 


thousand  dollars,  and  upon  the  condition 
that  the  United  States  Government  would,  at  its  own 
expense,  extinguish  the  Indian  claims  to  any  lands  in 
Georgia  so  soon  as  this  could  be  done  peacefully  and 
upon  reasonable  terms. 

Between  1 802  and  1820  the  Government  made  some 
advance  in  the  discharge  of  this  obligation.  By  this 
latter  date,  however,  designing  white  men  had  joined 
with  the  Indian  tribes  located  within  the  Common 
wealth,  and  were  seeking  to  organize  an  Indian  State 
for  the  purposes  of  their  own  political  ambition,  and 
many  well  disposed  white  persons  were  aiding  them  from 
humanitarian  motives.  The  Georgians  even  accused 
the  Government  of  doing  things  that  would  contribute 
to  the  same  result.  The  Georgians  were  forced  to  face 
a  very  serious  question,  the  question  of  an  Indian  State, 
controlled  chiefly  by  white  adventurers  and  sentimen 
talists,  within  the  legal  limits  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Under  this  pressure  the  Georgians  reviewed  the 
whole  question  of  Indian  organization,  and  rights  to 
territory.  They  advanced  the  propositions,  that  the 
Indian  tribal  organizations  were  not  States  and  could 
not,  therefore,  exercise  dominion,  and  give  title  to  real 
property  ;  that  the  Indians  living  within  the  legal  limits 
of  the  Commonwealth  were  subject  to  its  jurisdiction  in 
the  same  manner  as  other  persons,  and  to  the  same  ex 
tent  ;  that  the  original  title  to  all  land  within  the  limits 
of  Georgia  was  in  the  Commonwealth,  and  every  valid 
title  must  be  derived  from  the  Commonwealth  ;  that 
the  claim  of  the  Indians  to  the  lands  on  which  the 
tribes  lived  was  simply  an  incumbrance  upon  Georgia's 


212  1HE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

title,  an  incumbrance  which  the  general  Government 
was  obligated  to  remove  ;  and  that,  after  the  Govern 
ment  should  discharge  this  duty,  Georgia's  title  would 
be  perfect,  without  any  formal  transfer  of  these  lands 
to  Georgia  by  the  Government. 

In  1819  the  Legislature  of  Georgia  memorialized  Pres 
ident  Monroe  to  hasten  the  work  of  the  Government  in 
The  demand  extinguishing  the  Indian  claims.      In    the 
-  Jear   1824  tne   Creek   chiefs  in   council  re- 
s°lve(^  that  no^  a  ^°°^  °^  the  lan(ls  claimed 
claims.  by    the    Creeks    should     be    relinquished. 

Nevertheless,  President  Monroe's  administration  suc 
ceeded,  in  February  of  1825,  in  negotiating  an  agree 
ment  with  certain  of  the  Creek  chieftains  ac- 


springs  ^Cov-  cording  to  which  they  relinquished  to  the 
United  States  the  Creek  claims  to  all  lands 
lying  within  the  limits  of  Georgia,  and  also  to  lands  ly 
ing  to  the  northwest  and  to  the  west  of  the  Common 
wealth.  This  agreement  was  ratified  by  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  in  March  of  the  same  year. 

The  Governor  of  Georgia,  Mr.  Troup,  immediately  de 

spatched  the  public  surveyors  to  lay  out  the  relinquished 

territory.     They  were  resisted  by  the  Ind- 

ation6  ofputhe  ians,  who  declared  their  repudiation  of  the 

agreement.       agreement  of  February  12th  with  the  gen 

eral  Government. 

At  the  same  moment  a  number  of  the  chiefs  were 
representing  to  the  new  President,  Mr.  Adams,  that 
that  agreement  was  a  fraud  upon  the  Indians,  and  that 
the  chiefs  who  signed  were  not  properly  authorized  to 
do  so.  The  agent  of  the  Government  to  the  Creeks 
supported  their  protest,  despite  the  fact  that  he  was 
present  at  the  execution  of  the  agreement.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  James 
Barbour,  wrote  to  Governor  Troup  that  the  President 


NULLIFICATION  213 

expected  him  to  abandon  the  survey  until  it  could  be 
made  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  agree 
ment  which  allowed  the  Indians  until  September  1st, 
1826,  for  their  removal,  and  guaranteed  them  against  all 
encroachments  before  that  date. 

The  communication  from  Secretary  Barbour  gave  rise 
to  a  spirited  controversy  between  the  Governor  of  Georgia 
and  himself,  in  which  the  Governor  assumed 
an  extreme  "States'  rights"  attitude  in  versy between 
defence  of  his  position.  He  claimed  that  trationand 
Georgia's  jurisdiction  over,  and  title  to,  the 
lands  formally  relinquished  by  the  Creeks  to  the  United 
States  were  not  originated  by  this  act,  but  were  only  re 
lieved  by  it  of  an  incumbrance,  and  that,  therefore,  no 
additional  act  was  necessary  on  the  part  of  the  Govern 
ment  to  authorize  Georgia  to  take  possession  and  exercise 
jurisdiction.  He  declared  that  he  would  not  postpone 
the  survey,  and  advised  the  legislature  of  the  Com 
monwealth  to  defend  Georgia's  rights  by  armed  re 
sistance,  which  recommendation  the  legislature  seemed 
about  to  approve. 

The  President  sent  General  Gaines  to  the  scene  of  ac 
tion,  and  authorized  him  to  place  the  militia  of  the 
Commonwealths  adjoining  Georgia  in  readiness  for  ser 
vice.  The  Governor  was  highly  excited  by  the  approach 
of  the  military  power  of  the  United  States,  and  wrote  to 
Secretary  Barbour  virtually  accusing  the  Government 
of  inciting  the  Indians  to  violence  against  Georgia  and 
her  people,  and  demanding  to  be  informed  of  the  pur 
poses  of  the  Administration.  Mr.  Barbour  replied  that 
the  President  had  decided  that  the  survey  should  not 
proceed,  and  had  sent  General  Gaines  with  orders  to 
prevent  it,  with  military  power  if  necessary.  The 
Governor  now  turned  to  the  President  himself,  with 
both  protest  and  threat,  but  the  President  remained 


214  THE   MIDDLE  PEEIOD 

firm,  and  the  Governor  was  obliged  to  yield  for  the  mo 
ment. 

The  Administration  was  apparently  convinced  that 
the  agreement  of  1825  was  not  fairly  obtained,  and,  in 
The  creek  Januai7  °f  1826,  entered  into  another  agree- 
?8°26Venti°n  °f  ment  w^h  ^e  Creeks,  which,  while  recogniz 
ing  the  nullity  of  the  agreement  of  1825,  se 
cured  the  extinguishment  of  their  claims  to  all  lands  in 
Georgia  lying  east  of  the  Chattahoochee,  and  to  a  consid 
erable  tract  north  and  west  of  this  river.  The  Ad 
ministration  asserted  that  all  the  Creek  lands  lying 
within  the  limits  of  Georgia  were  secured.  Senator 
Berrien  of  Georgia,  who  represented  the  interests  of 
his  Commonwealth  when  the  agreement  came  before  the 
Senate  for  ratification,  said,  on  the  contrary,  that  it 
failed  by  a  million  of  acres  of  having  done  so. 

Governor  Troup  declared  that  the  general  Government 
could  not  by  an  agreement  with  the  Creeks  rob  Georgia 
of  vested  rights,  which  had  been,  once  for 


. 

or  of  Georgia  all,  perfected  by  the  agreement  of  1825.    He 

repudiates  the          n         n     .  ,  -,  -,  .  ,     , 

convention  of  ordered  the  public  surveyors  to  include  in 
their  surveys  the  lands  claimed  by  Georgia 
west  of  the  line  designated  in  the  agreement  of  1826. 
The  Indians  resisted  them,  and  appealed  to  the  Presi 
dent  to  protect  their  rights  as  recognized  by  the  latter 
agreement.  The  President  ordered  the  United  States 
District  Attorney  and  Marshal  for  Georgia  to  arrest  any 
one  caught  in  the  act  of  surveying  the  lands  west  of  the 
line  fixed  by  the  agreement  of  1826.  The  Governor 
was  informed  of  this  order,  and  was  given  to  understand 
that  the  President  would  uphold  the  agreement  of 
1826  by  any  and  all  power  necessary.  The  Governor, 
however,  defied  the  Administration,  ordered  the  law 
officers  of  the  Commonwealth  to  effect,  by  any  means 
necessary,  the  release  of  the  arrested  surveyors,  and  to 


NULLIFICATION"  215 

secure  the  arrest  and  trial  of  those  persons  who  had  taken 
or  held  them  in  custody,  ordered  the  commanders  of  the 
militia  of   the  Commonwealth   to  hold  their  forces  in 
readiness  to  resist  the  threatened  invasion  by  the  military 
power  of  the  United  States,  and  sent  a  message  to  the 
legislature  informing  that  body  of  what  he  had  done  in 
the  premises.     In  this  message  he  took  the  ground  that  \ 
questions   of  jurisdiction — he  called  them  questions  of  / 
sovereignty  —  between    the    general    Government    and 
the  Commonwealths  could   not  be  determined  by  the  \ 
judicial  power  of  that  Government,  but  must  be  settled 
by  agreement  between  the  two  parties. 

President  Adams  was  deeply  impressed  with  the 
seriousness  of  the  situation.  He  felt  that  he  must  up 
hold  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  Gov-  The 
ernment  at  all  hazards  and  by  all  the  means 
intrusted  to  him  by  the  Constitution  and  congress, 
the  laws  ;  and  yet  he  was  unwilling  to  provoke  civil 
war,  if  it  could  be  avoided,  or  to  enter  upon  the  work 
of  coercion  without  the  practically  unanimous  support 
of  the  country.  He  resolved,  therefore,  to  lay  the  mat 
ter  before  Congress,  and  await  its  action.  Congress  did 
practically  nothing,  and  the  President  was  convinced 
that  the  nation  was  not  prepared  to  have  the  Indian 
problem  fought  out  under  the  issue  of  "  States'  rights" 
versus  the  Union. 

Encouraged  by  this  success  the  Georgians  now  resolved 
to  subject  the  Cherokees  living  within  the  limits  of  the 
Commonwealth  to  the  laws  thereof  or  force  Georgia  and 
them  to  emigrate.  In  December  of  1827,  the  Cherokees. 
the  legislature  passed  a  law  extending  the  criminal  ju 
risdiction  of  the  Commonwealth  over  a  part  of  the  lands 
occupied  by  the  Cherokees.  The  Indians  appealed  to 
the  President.  The  appeal  came  before  the  President 
during  the  last  month  of  his  official  term,  and  he  dis- 


216  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

creetly  and  courteously  resolved  not  to  embarrass  the 
new  Administration  by  committing  the  Government  to 
any  position  in  the  question. 

President  Jackson  was  even  less  inclined   than  his 

predecessor  to  allow  the  Indian  question  to  resolve  itself 

into  the  question  of  the  constitutional  spheres 

Ote*indi  an  of  authority  between  the  Union  and  the  Com- 


monwealths.  Moreover,  he  believed  that 
Georgia  was  in  the  right  in  the  Indian  question.  He 
replied  to  the  Cherokee  memorial  that  he  knew  of  no 
alternative  to  submission  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Georgia 
except  emigration  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Common 
wealth.  His  view  was  that  the  general  Government 
could  not  hinder  a  Commonwealth  from  exercising 
jurisdiction  over  every  person  within  its  limits.,  except 
in  such  cases  as  were  reserved  from  that  jurisdiction 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  could 
not  lend  its  countenance  to  the  creation  of  a  new  po 
litical  organization  within  these  limits  against  the  will 
of  the  Commonwealth.  This  was  the  latter  part  of 
April,  1829.  The  Cherokees,  influenced  largely  by 
the  whites  among  them,  resented  the  President's  ad 
vice,  and  the  council  of  chiefs  resolved  that  no  lands 
claimed  by  the  Cherokees  should  be  relinquished,  ex 
cept  by  consent  of  the  tribe  or  tribes,  under  penalty  of 
death  for  violation  of  their  resolve,  and  rejected  the 
overtures  of  the  Government  for  the  relinquishment  of 
their  claims. 

In  his  message  of  December  8th,  1829,  President 
Jackson  devoted  much  space  to  the  Indian  problem  in 
general,  and  to  it,  as  it  affected  Georgia  and  Alabama,  in 
particular.  He  repeated  to  Congress  the  views  which 
he  had  expressed  to  the  Cherokees  themselves,  which 
were,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  general  Government 
could  not  lend  its  countenance  to  the  creation  of  an 


NULLIFICATION  217 

Indian  State  within  the  confines  of  any  Commonwealth 
of  the  Union  against  the  will  of  that  Commonwealth,, 
and  that  the  only  alternative  to  subjection  to  the  laws 
of  the  Commonwealth  on  the  part  of  the  Indians  was 
emigration  beyond  the  limits  of  the  same.  He  also 
suggested  the  setting  apart  of  a  district  in  the  far  West 
for  the  permanent  home  of  such  Indian  tribes  as  should 
prefer  to  continue  in  tribal  organization,  independent  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  any  Commonwealth  of  the  Union, 
where  they  might  work  out  their  own  customs  un 
molested. 

This  was  the  democratic,  "  States'  rights  "  view  of  the 
subject.  It  denied  all  exemptions  from  the  supremacy 
of  the  laws,  and  it  also  denied  to  the  general  Govern 
ment  any  power  to  restrain  a  Commonwealth  from  the 
assertion  of  its  jurisdiction  over  all  persons  within  its 
legal  limits,  except  in  cases  specially  reserved  by  the 
Constitution. 

The  Administration  of  Mr.  Adams,  and  the  Adminis 
trations  of  all  of  his  predecessors,  had  apparently  inclined 
to  the  view  that  the  Indian  tribes  were  al- 

...  Indian    pol- 

ready   states,    having    dominion    over,   and   icy  before 

Jackson 

property  in,  the  territory  of  the  continent 
when  the  Europeans  arrived  upon  it ;  that  the  titles  of 
the  European  states  to  it  were  only  valid  as  against  each 
other,  and  meant,  in  relation  to  the  aborigines,  only  a 
right  of  pre-emption ;  and  that  after  the  Constitution 
was  established  no  government  except  the  general  Gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  could  have  anything  to 
do  with  them. 

This  was  a  crude  and  an  impracticable  view  of  the  re 
lation.  It  contained  more  of  sentiment  and  humanitari- 
anism  than  of  common  sense  and  inductive  wisdom. 
The  theory  broke  down  completely  in  the  Georgia  case, 
and  could  not  be  re-enlivened  for  practical  purposes 


218  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

even  by  judicial  decisions.  The  necessities  of  civiliza 
tion  have  forced  the  country  to  follow  the  course  out 
lined  by  President  Jackson,  and  that  is  certainly  good 
evidence  of  its  correctness. 

The  Georgians  must  have  been  encouraged  by  his 
message,  for  the  legislature  of  Georgia  immediately 
passed  an  act  connecting  the  Cherokee  lands  with  the 
counties  which  they  adjoined,  and  imposing  the  full 
jurisdiction  of  the  Commonwealth  upon  all  persons  liv 
ing  or  being  within  the  same% 

The  Indians  then  caused  an  original  bill  to  be  filed  in 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  against  Georgia, 
The  case  of  together  with  a  supplemental  bill  praying 
Nationher°kee  ^or  a  temporary  injunction  to  restrain  the 
Commonwealth  from  enforcing  its  jurisdic 
tion,  and  for  the  issuing  of  a  subpoena  to  Georgia  to  ap 
pear  before  the  Court.  The  Court  issued  its  summons, 
but  the  Commonwealth  made  no  answer,  and  the  Court 
decided,  in  its  January  term  of  1831,  that  the  Cherokee 
nation  was  not  a  " State"  in  the  sense  of  that  provision 
of  the  Constitution  which  designates  the  parties  quali 
fied  to  sue  in  the  United  States  Courts.  This  decision 
was  pronounced  immediately  after  the  execution  of  the 
Cherokee  Tassells  by  the  Georgia  authorities,  in  defi 
ance  of  a  writ  of  error  addressed  to  the  Commonwealth 
by  a  United  States  court,  requiring  the  Commonwealth 
to  show  cause  why  he  should  not  be  discharged  from 
custody.  It  is  probable  that  the  Supreme  Court  was 
impressed  by  this  demonstration  of  the  impotence  of 
the  judiciary  to  interfere  successfully  with  the  political 
policy  of  a  Commonwealth,  even  in  behalf  of  personal 
liberty. 

A  year  later  the  Court  took  a  more  national  view  and 
stand.  A  Presbyterian  missionary  to  the  Cherokees, 
the  Rev.  Samuel  A.  Worcester,  of  Vermont,  had  vio- 


NULLIFICATION  219 

lated  the  Georgia  statute,  which  made  it  a  criminal  of 
fence  to  reside  among  the  Cherokees  after  March  1st, 
1831,  without  a  license  from  the  Governor,  The  case  of 
and  without  having  taken  an  oath  to  support 
and  defend  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth. 
He  was  indicted  and  tried  by  a  Georgia  court,  found 
guilty,  and  condemned  to  imprisonment  in  the  peniten 
tiary  of  the  Commonwealth.  A  writ  of  error  was  issued 
by  one  of  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  requiring  the  Commonwealth  of  Georgia 
to  show  cause  why  the  prisoner  should  not  be  dis 
charged.  The  writ  was  served  on  the  Governor  and 
the  Attorney-General  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  only 
answer  which  the  Commonwealth  gave  to  the  summons 
was  the  sending  up  of  the  record  of  the  case,  signed 
by  the  clerk  of  the  court  which  pronounced  the  judg 
ment,  and  authenticated  by  the  seal  of  the  court.  The 
judge  of  the  Georgia  court  did  not  sign  the  record. 
Nevertheless  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
decided  that  the  record  of  the  Georgia  court  was  prop 
erly  before  it,  and  the  Chief  Justice  proceeded  to  make, 
in  the  Court's  opinion  of  the  case,  an  exhaustive  review 
of  the  Indian  relations  of  the  United  States,  in  accord 
with  the  principles  of  the  Adams  Administration,  and  to 
pronounce  the  statute  of  Georgia,  asserting  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  Commonwealth  over  the  Cherokee  lands  and 
over  all  persons  residing  or  being  on  them,  unconstitu 
tional,  null,  and  void,  and  the  arrest,  trial,  and  sentence 
of  Mr.  Worcester  under  the  same  to  have  been,  there 
fore,  without  warrant  of  law. 

But  the  Georgia  authorities  paid  no  attention  to  the 
decision.  They  did  not  liberate  the  prisoner  or  accord 
him  a  new  trial.  Later  on,  the  Governor  of  the  Com 
monwealth  pardoned  him  as  his  own  act  of  grace. 

It  was   certainly  the   duty  of   the  President   of   the 


220  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

United   States  to  have  executed  this  decision  of  the 

Court  with  all  the  power  necessary   for   the  purpose 

which  the  Constitution  conferred  upon  him. 

The  failure 

of  the  Presi-  He  did  not  do  it.     It  is  said  on  very  good 

dent   to   exe-  ,-,•,•  ,    i  ^ 

cute  the  deci-  authority  that  he  intimated,  at  least,  that 
Worcester  he  would  not  do  it.  The  Commonwealth 
simply  defied  the  Court  successfully,  and  the 
President  and  Congress  acquiesced  in  the  result.  The 
President  agreed  in  opinion  with  the  Georgians  upon 
the  subject,  and  the  doctrine  which  here  triumphed  was 
one  more  plank  in  the  platform  of  the  Jacksonian  de 
mocracy,  a  real  "  States'  rights  "  principle. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  South  Carolinians  were  en 
couraged  by  the  course  of  events  in  Georgia  to  believe 

Jackson  and  tliat  tlie^  woul(i  have  something  like  the 
caihoun.  same  experiences  and  results  in  their  con 
test  with  the  Government.  In  this  they  do  not  seem  to 
have  fully  realized  the  fact  that  President  Jackson  did 
not  agree  with  them  in  their  view  of  the  unconstitution 
ally  of  the  tariff,  as  he  agreed  with  the  Georgians  in 
their  view  of  the  Indian  question.  Moreover,  there  was 
a  personal  element  in  the  controversy  which  they  do  not 
seem  to  have  appreciated  at  all.  Jackson  had,  down  to 
1830,  supposed  that  Mr.  Crawford  was  the  member  of  the 
Cabinet  of  Mr.  Monroe,  in  1819,  who  wanted  to  have 
him  arrested  and  tried  by  a  court-martial  for  disobeying 
orders,  or  acting  in  excess  of  orders,  during  the  Seminole 
War,  and  that  Mr.  Caihoun  was  his  defender.  Jack 
son's  hatred  of  Crawford  had  been  intense  during  these 
years  for  this  reason.  In  1830  Governor  Forsyth,  of 
Georgia,  revealed  to  Jackson  the  truth  in  regard  to  this 
matter,  which  was  that  Caihoun  was  for  arraigning  him 
and  Adams  was  his  defender.  Jackson  immediately  de 
manded  an  explanation  of  Caihoun,  but  the  reply  did 
not  at  all  satisfy  him,  and  the  hostility  which  he  had 


NULLIFICATION  221 

felt  for  Crawford  was  now  turned  with  redoubled  force 
against  Calhoun.  Calhoun  was  now  regarded  by  Jack 
son  as  a  traitor  to  Jackson,  and  that  meant,  in  Jackson's 
mind,  that  he  was  a  traitor  to  his  country.  Any  move 
ment  against  the  Government  or  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  headed  by  Calhoun  would  be  considered  by  Jack 
son  as  rebellion,  most  surely  so  while  Jackson  was  Presi 
dent. 

Following  the  principles  developed  in  Mr.  Calhoun's 
letter  of  August  28th,  1832,  Governor  Hamilton  issued 
a  call  for  a  special  session  of  the  Legislature  The  ca]J  of 
of  South  Carolina,  in  the  autumn  of  1832,  the  conven- 
for  the  purpose  of  effecting  through  it  the  south  caro- 
assembly  of  the  convention  of  the  Com 
monwealth.  The  party  in  favor  of  nullification  had  at 
last  secured  both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  and  on 
October  24th,  183-2,  the  assembled  Legislature  voted  to 
issue  the  call  for  the  convention,  and  appointed  Novem 
ber  19th  as  the  day  upon  which  it  should  meet. 

The  convention  assembled  at  the  time  designated, 
elected  Governor  Hamilton  as  its  chairman,  and  ap 
pointed  a  committee  of  twenty -one  mem-  The  work  of 
bers  to  consider  the  situation  and  report  ^Oen 
a  proposition  to  meet  it.  In  due  time  this  tion- 
committee  made  its  report  to  the  convention,  in  which 
was  contained,  first,  a  review  of  the  development  of  the 
tariff  from  a  revenue  measure  to  a  measure  for  the  pro 
tection  of  manufactures,  of  the  ten  years  of  fruitless 
struggle  in  Congress  by  the  South  against  the  oppres 
sion  inflicted  by  the  protective  system  upon  that  section, 
and  of  the  theories  advanced  by  the  fathers  of  the  Re 
public  for  meeting,  in  last  instance,  such  a  condition  of 
affairs  ;  and,  second,  the  famous  Ordinance  of  Nullifica 
tion  as  the  remedy  of  last  resort.  The  convention  voted 
to  receive  the  report  and  to  adopt  its  recommendations. 


222  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

On  November  24th  the  convention  passed,  in  solemn 
form,  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification  of  the  existing 
tariff  laws  of  the  United  States. 

The  convention  declared  and  ordained  in  this  instru 
ment,  that  "  the  several  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  purporting  to 

The  Nullifi-    ,       ,  <.        ,-,        .  .  ,.  A     ,  •  -,    • 

cation ordi-  be  laws  tor  the  imposing  oi  duties  and  im 
posts  on  the  importation  of  foreign  commo 
dities,  and  now  having  actual  operation  and  effect 
within  the  United  States,  and,  more  especially,"  the 
Act  of  May  19th,  1828,  and  that  of  July  14th,  1832, 
"  are  unauthorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  violate  the  true  meaning  and  intent  thereof, 
and  are  null  and  void  and  no  law,  nor  binding  upon  this 
State,  its  officers  or  citizens ;  and  all  promises,  con 
tracts,  and  obligations  made  or  entered  into,  or  to  be 
made  or  entered  into,  with  purpose  to  secure  the  duties 
imposed  by  the  said  acts,  and  all  judicial  proceedings 
which  shall  be  hereafter  had  in  affirmance  thereof,  are 
and  shall  be  held  utterly  null  and  void." 

It  further  ordained  that  no  appeal  should  be  allowed 
from  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  the  Commonwealth 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  questions  in 
volving  the  validity  of  the  aforesaid  Acts  of  Congress,  or 
of  the  Ordinance  of  the  convention  annulling  them,  or  of 
the  acts  of  the  legislature  giving  effect  to  the  Ordinance, 
and  that  no  copy  of  the  proceedings  in  the  courts  of  the 
Commonwealth  should  be  allowed  for  any  such  purpose, 
but  that  the  courts  of  the  Commonwealth  should  pro 
ceed  to  execute  their  decisions  upon  such  issues  without 
regard  to  any  attempts  to  appeal  therefrom,  and  should 
deal  with  any  person  making  such  attempt  as  being 
guilty  of  contempt  of  court.  It  then  commanded  that 
all  the  officers  of  the  Commonwealth,  civil  and  military, 
and  the  jurors  empanelled  in  the  courts  should  take  the 


NULLIFICATION  223 

oath  to  obey,  execute,  and  enforce  the  Ordinance,  under 
penalty  of  dismissal  and  disqualification,  and  finally,  it 
declared  that  South  Carolina  would  regard  her  connec 
tion  with  the  Union  as  absolved,  in  case  Congress  should 
pass  any  act  authorizing  the  employment  of  military 
force  to  reduce  her  to  obedience  to  the  nullified  acts,  or 
any  act  abolishing  or  closing  the  ports,  or  obstructing 
the  free  ingress  and  egress  of  vessels,  or  in  case  the 
United  States  should  undertake  to  coerce  the  Common 
wealth,  or  enforce  the  nullified  acts  otherwise  than 
through  the  civil  tribunals  of  the  country. 

For  the  execution  of  the  provisions  of  the  Ordinance 
the  convention  commanded  the  legislature  to  pass  such 
measures  as  would  prevent  the  enforcement  of  the  nulli 
fied  acts,  and  give  full  eif ect  to  the  nullifying  Ordinance, 
from  and  after  February  1st,  1833,  and  commanded  the 
obedience  of  all  persons  within  the  limits  of  the  Com 
monwealth  to  the  Ordinance  and  the  legislative  acts 
passed  for  its  execution. 

With  the  Ordinance  the  convention  issued  two  ad 
dresses,  one  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  and  the 
other  to  the  peoples  of  the  other  Common-  The  Ad_ 
wealths,  naming  each  separately.  The  one  to  jjyefhe|  jf0u£d~ 
the  people  of  South  Carolina  contained  the  vention- 
theory  of  nullification,  as  elaborated  by  Calhoun,  and 
the  justification  of  its  employment  in  the  existing  situa 
tion.  It  closed  with  an  appeal  to  their  love  of  liberty 
and  a  demand  of  obedience.  The  address  to  the  peoples 
of  the  several  Commonwealths  contained  an  announce 
ment  of  the  passage  of  the  nullifying  Ordinance,  the 
theory  upon  which  it  was  based,  an  assertion  of  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  protective  tariff,  and  its  op 
pression  upon  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  and  a  dec 
laration  of  the  spirit  and  feeling  of  the  convention,  and 
of  the  people  it  represented,  toward  the  Union,  the  Con- 


224  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

stitution  and  the  people  of  the  manufacturing  Com 
monwealths.  The  latter  part  of  this  address  contained 
the  only  new  point  to  be  noticed.  It  was  the  offer 
of  a  plan  for  a  compromise  tariff  which  would  satisfy 
the  South  Carolinians.  The  plan  was  the  imposition  of 
the  same  rate  of  duty  upon  all  articles,  those  not  com 
ing  into  competition  with  the  products  of  the  country 
and  those  coming  into  such  competition,  and  the  raising 
of  no  more  revenue  than  should  be  necessary  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  Government  for  constitutional  purposes. 
In  a  message  of  November  27th,  Governor  Hamilton 
The  Ordi-  communicated  to  the  legislature  of  the  Com- 
monwealth  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification 


Legislature  of  an(j  recommended  the  enactment  of  meas- 
Una.  ures  by  that  body  for  the  execution  of  the 

Ordinance. 

On  December  13th,  the  new  Governor,  Colonel  Hayne, 
who  had  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate  in  order  that 
Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had  himself  resigned  the  vice-presi 
dency,  might  be  made  South  Carolina's  representative 
in  the  Senate,  or,  as  the  South  Carolinians  now  consid 
ered  it,  South  Carolina's  ambassador  to  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  pronounced  his  inaugural 
address  before  the  Legislature,  dedicating  himself  to  the 
service  of  the  Commonwealth  in  the  execution  of  her 
Ordinance  of  Nullification. 

The  Legislature  immediately  passed  the  acts  required 
The  Acts  of  by  the  convention  and  recommended  by  the 

the    Legisla-    n.nvprrmr 
ture    for    the     vrOVei     or. 

theeutionrd?-  The  first  act,  termed  the  Eeplevin  Act, 
nance.  authorized  any  consignee  of  merchandise,  or 

any  person  lawfully  entitled  to  the  possession  of  mer 
chandise,  held  or  detained  for  the  payment  of  the 
duties  imposed  upon  the  same  by  the  nullified  Acts  of 
Congress,  to  recover  possession  of  the  same,  with  dam- 


NULLIFICATION  225 

ages  for  its  detention,  by  a  writ  of  replevin,  that  is,  by 
a  summary  procedure  executed  by  an  officer  of  the 
Commonwealth  ;  and  the  Act  authorized  this  officer,  on 
initiation  of  the  plaintiff  in  replevin,  to  seize  the  private 
property  of  the  person  detaining  the  merchandise  to 
double  the  value  of  the  latter,  in  case  this  person  should 
refuse  to  deliver  the  detained  merchandise  to  the  sheriff, 
or  should  put  it  out  of  the  sheriff's  way,  and  to  hold 
the  property  so  seized  until  the  merchandise  in  question 
should  be  produced  and  delivered  to  the  sheriff. 

This  Act  also  authorized  any  person  paying  the  nulli 
fied  duties  to  recover  the  money  paid,  with  interest  on 
the  same,  by  an  action,  in  a  court  of  the  Common 
wealth,  for  money  had  and  received ;  and  it  authorized 
any  person  suffering  arrest  or  imprisonment  by  order  of 
any  United  States  court,  in  execution  of  the  nullified 
Acts,  to  demand  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus,  and  to  maintain  an  action  for  unlawful  arrest  and 
imprisonment. 

It  declared  the  sale  of  any  property  seized  by  a  United 
States  court,  in  execution  of  the  nullified  Acts,  to  be  il 
legal,  and  ordained  that  such  sale  should  convey  no  title 
to  the  purchaser.  It  forbade  any  officer  of  a  court  of 
the  Commonwealth  to  furnish  the  record,  or  a  copy  of 
the  record,  or  allow  a  copy  of  the  record  to  be  taken, 
of  any  case  in  which  the  validity  of  the  nullified  Acts  or 
the  nullifying  Acts  should  be  drawn  in  question,  under 
penalty  of  both  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  it  forbade 
any  person  to  attempt  to  recapture  the  goods  delivered 
by  the  sheriff  to  the  plaintiff  in  replevin,  under  threat 
of  the  same  punishment. 

It  further  forbade  the  keepers  of  the  jails  to  receive  and 

detain  any  person  arrested   or  committed  by  virtue  of 

any  proceeding  for  enforcing  the  nullified  Acts,  under 

penalty  of  both  fine  and  imprisonment ;  and  it  imposed 

15 


226  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

•> 

a  similar  penalty  upon  the  offence  of  hiring,  letting,  or 
procuring  any  place  to  be  used  as  a  place  of  confine 
ment  for  such  person. 

Finally,  it  forbade  any  person  to  disobey,  obstruct, 
prevent,  or  resist  any  process  allowed  by  this  Act, 
under  penalty  of  both  fine  and  imprisonment ;  and 
it  threatened  every  plaintiff,  who  should  bring  suit 
against  any  officer  or  person  executing  or  aiding  in  the 
execution  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  with  adverse 
judgment  and  double  costs. 

The  second  Act  of  the  Legislature  was  a  measure  to 
provide  for  the  event  of  the  employment  of  military 
power  by  the  general  Government  to  enforce  the  nulli 
fied  Acts  in  South  Carolina.  It  authorized  the  Gov 
ernor  of  the  Commonwealth  to  resist  the  same  ;  and  for 
this  purpose  to  order  into  service  the  whole  military 
power  of  the  Commonwealth  at  his  discretion,  to  pur 
chase  arms,  accoutrements,  and  ammunitions,  and  to 
appoint  his  military  staff ;  and  it  authorized  and  obli 
gated  the  Governor  to  use  military  power  in  suppress 
ing  opposition  to.  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  by 
combinations  too  powerful  to  be  controlled  by  the  civil 
officers. 

The  third  Act  was  the  test  oath,  the  oath  to  obey, 
execute,  and  enforce  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification, 
and  all  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  for  its  enforcement, 
which  every  officer  of  the  Commonwealth  must  take 
before  dealing  with  any  question  touching  the  nullified 
Acts  or  the  nullifying  Acts,  and  which  the  Governor 
might  require  of  any  officer  whatever. 

These  were  the  details  and  the  forms  of  the  issue 
which  South  Carolina  now  offered  to  the  United  States. 
Was  it  rebellion,  or  was  it  constitutional  and  legal  op 
position  ? 

As  we  have  seen,  Calhoun  and  the  members  of  the 


NULLIFICATION  227 

nullifying  convention  held  it  to  be  the  latter.^They 
argued  that  the  reserved  powers  of  the  Common 
wealths  are  recognized  by  the  Constitution  ;  The  mean_ 
that  every  conceivable  power  is  reserved  to  ing  of  Nuiim- 

cation  as  un- 

the   Commonwealths,,    except    such    as    are  derstood    by 

ITT       n      r*         i'ii-        •      ,1  i  r\  tlie  Nullifiers. 

vested  by  the  Constitution  111  the  general  Gov 
ernment  exclusively,  or  are  denied  by  the  Constitution 
to  the  Commonwealths ;  that  the  power  to  pronounce 
an  act  of  the  general  Government  null  and  void  had 
been  neither  so  vested  nor  so  denied  ;  that  this  was, 
therefore,  a  reserved  power  of  the  Commonwealths,  and 
was,  like  all  other  reserved  powers,  a  constitutional 
power ;  that  South  Carolina  proposed  to  use  this  power 
through  judicial  means  only,  which  means  were  legally 
and  constitutionally  at  her  disposal  through  the  prin 
ciple  of  the  governmental  system  of  the  United  States 
that  general  criminal  jurisdiction  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  Commonwealths  ;  and  that  the  employment  of  mili 
tary  power  by  the  Commonwealth,  indicated  in  the 
Ordinance  and  the  legislative  acts  for  its  enforcement, 
was  to  be  resorted  to  only  in  self-defence,  only  to  repel 
the  possible  attack  of  the  military  power  of  the  general 
Government  upon  South  Carolina. 

It  is  entirely  evident  that  the  South  Carolina  states 
men  and  lawyers  thought  they  had  so  fashioned  the 
laws  of  the  Commonwealth  as  to  force  the  general  Gov 
ernment  to  the  first  violation  of  legal  order  in  attempt 
ing  to  execute  the  nullified  Acts  of  Congress — that  is, 
they  thought  they  had  made  it  impossible  for  the 
general  Government  to  execute  these  Acts  by  regular 
legal  methods ;  and  that  they  had  done  so  without 
themselves  violating  any  rule  or  principle  of  American 
jurisprudence.  They  repeated  the  assertion,  again  and 
again,  that  they  did  not  rest  their  case  on  moral,  or  on 
revolutionary,  principles,  but  on  strict  constitutional 


228  THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

right ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  they  were  in 
sincere. 

The  great  question  now  was,  what  attitude  the  gen 
eral  Government  would  take  toward  the  attempt  of 
a  Commonwealth  to  defeat  the  supremacy  of  its  laws. 
Naturally  the  Executive  Department  must  act  first, 
since  nullification  was  directed  against  the  execution  of 
existing  laws. 

In  his  message  of  December  4th  (1832),  President 
Jackson  referred  briefly  to  the  events  of  the  preceding 
Jackson's  month  in  South  Carolina,  but  did  not  seem 
Jcation  Num"  ^°  ^ave  fr^ty  appreciated  their  purport.  He 
said  he  hoped  the  United  States  courts  would 
be  able  to  cope  successfully  with  the  difficulties  in 
South  Carolina,  and  that,  if  they  were  not,  he  thought 
that  the  existing  laws  gave  th*e  President  sufficient 
power  to  suppress  any  attempts  which  might  be  imme 
diately  made  against  the  supremacy  of  the  Government. 

He  devoted  a  much  larger  portion  of  the  message  to 
a  consideration  of  the  tariff,  and  declared  that  the  time 
The  Tariff  had  arrived  for  the  United  States  to  enter 
Mess/JeTf  uP°n  the  realization  of  the  policy  of  a  tariff 
1832.  for  revenue  only,  and  of  the  ultimate  limita 

tion  of  protection  to  those  articles  of  domestic  manu 
facture  indispensable  to  the  country  in  time  of  war. 

It  is  possible  that  the  President  did,  after  all,  under 
stand  the  serious  nature  of  the  situation  from  the  out 
set,  and  hoped,  by  his  pronounced  recommendations  in 
regard  to  the  tariff,  and  his  very  mild  utterances  con 
cerning  nullification,  to  influence  the  South  Carolinians 
to  a  reconsideration  of  their  hasty  acts,  and  give  them  a 
loophole  of  escape  from  their  very  dubious  and  embar 
rassing  position. 

He  waited  for  six  days,  and  then  issued  the  noted 
proclamation  of  December  10th,  which  presented  the 


NULLIFICATION  229 

President's  idea  of  the  relation  of  the  United  States, 
as  a  nation,  and  of  the  general  Government,  to  the 
Commonwealths,  asserted  the  supremacy  of  The 
United  States  law  over  Commonwealth  law,  Son 
demonstrated  the  true  character  of  nullifi-  cembenoth. 
cation  as  rebellion,  and  declared  the  President's  inten 
tion  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  United  States  against  any 
and  all  opposition. 

The  President  assumed  as  his  cardinal  principle  that 
the  Union  preceded  independence,  and  that  by  a  joint 
act  the  people  of  the  united  colonies  declared  themselves 
a  nation  ;  that,  as  a  nation,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  established  the  Constitution  of  1787,  and  placed 
in  that  instrument  the  provision  that  the  Constitution, 
and  the  laws  and  treaties  made  in  accordance  therewith, 
are  "  the  supreme  law "  of  the  land,  and  that  ' '  the 
judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything 
in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding."  From  these  principles  the  Presi 
dent  derived  the  conclusions  that  no  legal  processes, 
which  South  Carolina  could  contrive,  could  prevent  the 
execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  South 
Carolina ;  that  to  accomplish  this  South  Carolina 
would  be  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  violence  ;  and  that 
this  necessity  stamped  nullification  as  rebellion. 

The  President  stopped  the  loop-hole  of  escape  from 
this  reasoning,  made  by  the  claim  of  the  nullifiers  that 
the  nullified  Acts  were  not  laws  made  in  accordance  with 
the  Constitution,  by  the  declaration  that  the  Judicial 
Department  of  tlie  general  Government  was  the  body 
designated  by  the  Constitution  to  determine  that  ques 
tion,  and  not  a  Commonwealth  convention. 

After  warning  the  nullifiers  to  desist  from  their  un 
lawful  enterprise,  the  President  closed  his  message  with 
an  eloquent  appeal  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina  to 


230  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

withdraw  from  their  unjustifiable  and  dangerous  posi 
tion,  and  an  equally  eloquent  appeal  to  the  people  of 
the  United  States  for  aid  and  support  in  preserving  the 
Union  and  maintaining  the  supremacy  of  the  Govern 
ment  and  the  laws. 

Already  before  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  Nulli 

fication,  the  President   had   caused  the  United  States 

.    military    officers    stationed    in    and    about 

dent's  military  Charleston  to  be  informed  of  their  danger, 

preparations.      ,      ,  .  .,, 

had  ordered  two  artillery  companies  irom 
Fort  Monroe  to  Fort  Moultrie,  had  commanded  General 
Scott  to  go  to  Charleston  and  do  what  might  be  neces 
sary  for  a  successful  defence  of  the  forts  and  places  held 
by  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  had  directed  all 
the  officers  in  command  to  defend  their  possession  of 
these  forts  and  places  to  the  last  extremity. 

The  President  had  also  caused  the  collectors  of  the 
customs  at  Charleston,  Georgetown,  and  Beaufort  to  be 
The   Presi-  reminded  of  their  powers  under  the  laws  of 
tne  United  States,  and  had  authorized  them 


cer8t0iS8so°u?h  *°  make  use  of  all  the  revenue  cutters  in  the 
Carolina.  harbors,  and  of  such  other  vessels  as  they 
could  secure,  and  to  call  to  their  assistance  the  officers 
of  the  cutters,  and  to  appoint  a  number  of  inspectors 
sufficient  to  execute  successfully  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  for  the  collection  of  the  duties.  The  collector 
at  Charleston  was  specially  authorized  to  remove  the 
custom-house  to  Castle  Pinckney,  at  his  discretion  ; 
and  the  United  States  District  Attorney  at  Charleston 
was  ordered  to  aid  the  collector  with  counsel  and  advice. 
After  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance,  the  President  or 
dered  five  more  companies  of  artillery  from  Fort  Monroe 
to  Fort  Moultrie,  commanded  the  removal  of  the  cus 
tom-house  from  Charleston  to  Castle  Pinckney,  and  sent 
General  Scott  to  Charleston  Harbor  to  take  command, 


NULLIFICATION  231 

on  the  spot,  of  all  the  forts  and  garrisons  there,  instruct 
ing  him  to  avoid  collision  with  the  forces  of  the  Com 
monwealth  so  long  as  possible,  but,  in  case  the  exigency 
should  arise  requiring  the  exercise  of  military  power,  to 
act  with  firmness  and  decision,  and  to  hold  possession 
of  the  forts  by  all  means  and  at  every  hazard. 

The  brave,  loyal,  and  patriotic,  yet  wise  and  consid 
erate,  stand  taken  by  the  President  was  supported  with 
great  unanimity  and  enthusiasm  throughout  The  popular 
the  North  ;  and  though  the  people  of  the  SIKSiXnS 
Southern  Commonwealths  felt  more  sym-  course- 
pathy  with  their  South  Carolina  brethren,  yet  the  dis 
sent  from  the  President's  views  and  attitude  in  that  sec 
tion  was  rare  and  feeble.  The  nation  was  with  the 
President,  and  the  President  had  done  his  duty  nobly 
and  fearlessly. 

The  turn  now  came  upon  Congress.  Would  Congress 
sustain  the  President,  and  give  him  all  the  means  nec 
essary  to  conquer  nullification  and  secession  in  fact,  and 
destroy  them  in  principle  ?  Unfortunately,  so  far  as 
finite  reason  can  judge,  the  first  movements  made  in 
Congress  were  in  the  opposite  direction.  That  part  of 
the  President's  message  which  dealt  with  the  question 
of  the  tariff  was  referred  by  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  to  its  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
and  on  December  27th,  1832,  the  chairman  pijnck  Tariff 
of  that  committee,  Mr.  Verplanck,  of  New  Ill- 
York,  reported  a  bill  from  the  committee  which  pro 
posed  to  reduce  and  equalize  duties  largely,  and  in  the 
direction  of  the  South  Carolina  principle.  If  this  bill 
should  pass,  the  nullifiers  could  well  assume  that  their 
Ordinance  had  accomplished  its  purpose  without  being 
applied,  and  could  with  triumphant  dignity  desist  from 
the  application  of  it ;  and  they  could  defer  with  al 
most  equal  dignity  the  application  of  the  Ordinance, 


232  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

so  long  as  there  was  any  probability  of  the  passage  of 
this  bill. 

Seven  days  before  the  introduction  of  this  bill,  Gov 
ernor  Hayne  had  issued  a  counter-proclamation  to  the 
Governor  President's  proclamation  of  December  10th, 
ter^prodama-"  ™  which  he  went  over  again  the  ground  of 
tion.  nullification  and  secession,  warned  the  citi 

zens  of  South  Carolina  against  the  President's  "perni 
cious  "  doctrines,  and  accused  the  President  of  indulg 
ing  in  unwarrantable  imputations  upon  South  Carolina. 
He  gave  notice,  on  the  same  day,  that  he  would  accept 
the  service  of  volunteers.  The  Legislature  supported 
the  Governor  in  defiant  resolutions,  which  it  sent  to  Con 
gress,  and  caused  to  be  read  in  that  body. 

The  President  was  much  ruffled  by  the  arrogant  lan 
guage  of  the  Governor  and  Legislature,  and  when  the 
Verplanck  bill  appeared,  it  must  have  looked 
dentS  Me ?-  *°  ^m  *°°  mucn  like  surrendering  the  entire 
!?gei6th  JS~  fi^d?  which  he  was  not  now  in  any  mood  to  do. 
He  felt  that  something  more  must  be  done 
to  vindicate  the  authority  and  the  dignity  of  the  Govern 
ment.  On  January  16th,  1833,  he  sent  another  mes 
sage  to  Congress,  demonstrating  and  denouncing  again 
the  pernicious  character  of  the  nullification  doctrine, 
informing  Congress  that  he  had  removed  the  custom 
house  from  Charleston  to  Castle  Pinckney,  and  asking 
Congress  for  the  power  to  change  the  customs  districts 
and  ports  of  entry,  to  exact  the  payment  of  duties  in 
cash,  and  to  use  the  land  and  naval  forces  when  neces 
sary  for  the  execution  of  the  revenue  laws. 

The  message  was  referred  by  the  Houses  of  Congress 
to  their  respective  committees  on  the  Judiciary  ;  but  im 
mediately  upon  the  reading  of  the  message,  and  before  the 
Senate  had  passed  the  motion  to  refer,  Mr.  Calhoun  said, 
in  that  body,  that  there  was  no  foundation  whatever  for  the 


NULLIFICATION  233 

statement  in  the  message  that  the  movements  made  by 
South  Carolina  were  intended  as  hostile  to  the  Union, 
or  were  so.  He  called  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  to  the  fact  that  before  the  Ordinance  explanations 
of  Nullification  was  passed,  before  .the  con-  J 
vention  had  assembled,  United  States  troops  had  been 
sent  to  Charleston  Harbor  ;  and  he  declared  that,  pre 
vious  to  this  circumstance,  South  Carolina  had  looked 
to  nothing  beyond  a  civil  process,  and  had  intended  to 
give  effect  to  her  opposition  merely  in  the  form  of  a  suit 
at  law,  and  that  it  was  only  when  a  military  force  had 
been  displayed  on  her  borders,  and  in  her  limits,  and 
when  a  menace  was  thrown  out  against  the  lives  of  her 
citizens,  that  they  found  themselves  driven  to  an  atti 
tude  of  resistance. 

On  the  21st  of  the  month  (January),  Mr.  Wilkins, 
the  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  committee  of  the  Senate, 
reported  from  his  committee  the  bill  for  The  "Force 
the  collection  of  the  revenue.  This  bill  Bill<" 
provided  for  expending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit 
Courts  of  the  United  States  over  all  cases  in  law  or 
equity  arising  under  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United 
States ;  for  making  all  property  taken  or  detained  by 
any  officer  or  person  under  authority  of  any  law  of  the 
United  States  irrepleviable  by  any  order  or  process  of 
the  tribunals  of  a  Commonwealth  ;  for  effecting  the 
removal  of  suits  commenced  in  a  Commonwealth  court 
against  any  officer  or  person  for  any  .act  done  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  or  on  account  of  any  right, 
authority,  or  title  claimed  under  those  laws,  to  the  Cir 
cuit  Courts  of  the  United  States,  by  means  of  proof  laid 
before  the  Circuit  Court  that  the  defendant  had  peti 
tioned  the  Commonwealth  court  for  the  removal  of  the 
cause.  The  bill  provided,  further,  for  substituting  for 
a  copy  of  the  record  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Common- 


234  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

wealth  court,  in  case  of  the  failure  of  that  court  to  fur 
nish  a  copy,  an  affidavit,  or  other  evidence,  as  the  cir 
cumstances  of  the  case  might  require  ;  for  giving  to  the 
United  States  judges  the  power  to  grant  writs  of  habeas 
corpus  in  all  cases  where  persons  were  in  confinement 
for  acts  done  in  pursuance  of  a  law  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  an  order,  process,  or  decree  of  any  United  States 
court  or  judge  ;  for  empowering  the  United  States  mar 
shals,  under  direction  of  the  United  States  judges,  to 
provide  places  of  confinement  for  persons  arrested  or 
committed  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  where 
any  Commonwealth  should  refuse  the  use  of  its  jails  for 
the  confinement  of  such  persons  ;  for  allowing  the  Presi 
dent  to  change  the  custom-house  from  one  place  in  a 
collection  district  to  another,  and  to  require  the  duties 
to  be  paid  in  cash  ;  and  for  empowering  the  President 
to  use  the  land  and  naval  forces  for  suppressing  any  re 
sistance  to  the  execution  of  the  revenue  laws  too  power 
ful  to  be  overcome  by  the  civil  officers  of  the  general 
Government. 

It  was  a  good,  stiff  measure,  but  it  was  constitutional 
at  every  point,  and  it  was  demanded  by  the  exigencies 
of  the  situation.  It  was  a  complete  answer  to  the  Re 
plevin  Act  of  South  Carolina,  and  it  would  inevitably 
throw  the  responsibility  for  committing  the  first  act  of 
violence  upon  the  Commonwealth  in  any  resistance  to 
the  collection  of  the  duties.  It  pricked  the  bubble  com 
pletely  of  South  Carolina's  proposed  legal  resistance  to 
the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 

Of  course  the  bill  was  denounced  at  once  by  the  South 
Carolinians  as  a  "  Force  Bill/'  Calhoun  attacked  it  as 
a  measure  for  coercing  a  sovereign  "  State,"  and  offered 
a  series  of  "  States'  rights"  propositions,  which  he  de 
clared  to  be  indisputable,  and  which  must,  therefore, 
prevent  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  discussion  upon 


NULLIFICATION  235 

these  resolutions,,  and  upon  the  bill  which  they  were 
meant  to  destroy,  dragged  on  from  day  to  day  in  the 
Senate,  while  that  upon  the  Verplanck  bill  in  the 
House  proceeded  even  more  slowly. 

The  chiefs  of  the  nullifiers,  professing  to  feel  that  the 
Government   was   yielding,  reassembled   in     The  postpone- 
convention  in  the  last  days  of  January,  and  Sutkm  of enu1- 
postponed  the  execution  of  their  Ordinance  lification- 
until  the  end  of  the  existing  Congressional  session. 

On  February  8th,  Mr.  Bell,  the  chairman  of  the  Ju 
diciary  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  re 
ported  to  that  body  that  his  committee  did  not  recom 
mend  vesting  the  President  with  any  further  powers  for 
the  execution  of  the  revenue  laws  than  those  already 
possessed  by  him,  and  that  they  could  not  approve  of 
the  employment  of  military  force  for  the  purpose. 

Such  was  the  situation  when,  on  February  12th,  Mr. 
Clay  astonished  the  Senate  with  the  noted  proposition 
for  compromise.  This  was  his  bill  for  the  The  Com 
gradual  reduction  of  the  duties  to  a  revenue  promise  Tar- 
basis.  The  revenue  basis  was  fixed  in  the 
bill  at  twenty  per  centum  ad  valorem  on  all  articles 
then  paying  a  higher  duty,  and  the  excess  was  to  be  re 
mitted  in  biennial  instalments,  and  entirely  abolished 
from  and  after  June  30th,  1842.  The  free  list  was  slight 
ly  extended,  and  cash  payments,  from  and  after  June 
30th,  1842,  were  provided. 

Mr.  Clay  said,  in  introducing  this  bill,  that  he  had 
two  purposes  in  view  :  one  to  save  what  could  be  saved 
of  the  protective  tariff,  and  the  other  to  al-  Mr.  ciay  on 
low  South  Carolina  to  withdraw  with  dignity  the  8ituation- 
from  the  position  which  she  had  rashly  assumed.  He 
claimed  that  his  feeling  toward  the  action  of  South 
Carolina  had  changed  since  her  Representatives  and 
Senators  in  Congress  had  disavowed  rebellion  and  had 


236  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

asserted  that  they  were  only  trying  to  invent  legal  meth 
ods  for  protecting  themselves  against  the  oppression 
of  the  tariff  Acts.  He  demonstrated  very  clearly  the 
error  of  supposing  that  they  could  do  any  such  thing, 
and  then  urged  his  brother  Senators  to  join  him  in  the 
proposed  measure  of  conciliation. 

Mr.  Calhoun  immediately  indicated  that  the  bill  would 

Mr.    cai-  have  his  support,  and  would  solve  the  difficul- 

p°oUrnts  of8  UMr~  ^Q8  between  South  Carolina  and  the  general 

clay's  bin.        Government.     He  professed  to  see  in  it  the 

concession  of  about  all  that  South  Carolina  had  asked. 

The  opposition  to  the  bill  came  from  three  quarters 
— from  the  protectionists,  who  clung  to  the  existing 
The  opposi-  law,  from  the  strong  nationalists,  who  were 
tiontothebm.  agajnst  any  show  of  compromise  with  nullifi 
cation,  and  from  the  strict  parliamentarians  who  held 
that  any  bill  touching  the  tariff  must  originate  in  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives. 

The  protectionists  were  answered,  and  many  of  them 
won  over,  by  the  argument  that  the  Verplanck  bill  would 
pass  if  they  did  not  accept  Mr.  Clay's  bill.  The  strong 
nationalists  were  told  that  if  Congress  should  pass  the 
Wilkins  bill  before  the  Clay  bill  a  sufficient  vindica 
tion  of  their  position  would  be  attained.  They  were  in 
clined  to  accept  that  view,  but  the  South  Carolinians  set 
themselves  against  this  order  of  procedure  with  all  their 
strength.  Mr.  Calhoun  came  forward  again  with  his 
"  States'  sovereignty  "  exposition  of  the  Constitution, 
and  denounced  the  Wilkins  bill  in  the  most  vehement 
language  as  "  utterly  unconstitutional,  as  an  attempt  to 
enforce  robbery  by  murder,  an  attempt  to  decree  the 
massacre  of  the  citizens  of  South  Carolina/'  and  de 
clared  that  the  citizens  of  South  Carolina  would,  should 
it  become  law,  resist  its  execution  "  at  every  hazard, 
even  that  of  death  itself/' 


NULLIFICATION  237 

On  the  following  day  Mr.  Webster  answered  Mr. 
Calhoun's  argument,,  and  demonstrated  so  clearly  the 
nationality  of  the  Constitution,  the  su-  passage  of 
premacy  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  Bm"'by°rthe 
and  the  rebellious  character  of  nullification,  senate, 
that  the  Senate  was  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  pass 
ing  the  Wilkins  bill  before  voting  upon  Mr.  Clay's  bill. 
On  the  20th  of  the  month  (February),  the  Senate  passed 
the  Wilkins  bill  by  a  vote  of  thirty-two  to  one.  The 
objections  of  the  strong  nationalists  to  Mr.  Clay's  bill 
were  now  substantially  satisfied  ;  but  the  high  protec 
tionists  still  held  out  in  considerable  number  for  some 
modification  of  the  bill  in  their  favor,  and  on  the  day 
after  the  passage  of  the  Wilkins  bill  by  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Clay  moved  to  amend  his  own  bill  by  the  proposition  to 
base  the  duties  on  home  valuation  instead  of  on  the  for 
eign  invoice.  The  protectionists  were  satisfied  by  this, 
but  Mr.  Calhoun  immediately  declared  that  South  Caro 
lina  would  not  accept  the  bill  with  this  change.  The 
protectionists,  in  sufficient  number  to  defeat  the  bill, 
declared  that  they  would  not  accept  it  without  the 
change.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  at  last  come  to  see  the  peril 
which  lay  in  South  Carolina's  course,  and  to  understand 
the  feeling  of  the  nation  toward  her.  He  wisely  con 
cluded  to  abandon  his  opposition  to  the  amendment, 
and  to  vote  for  the  bill. 

The  opposition  of  the  strict  parliamentarians,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Senate  could  not  originate  a  revenue 
bill,  was  overcome  by  the  action  of  the  Passage  of 
House  of  Representatives  in  substituting  the 
Clay  bill  for  the  Verplanck  bill,  and  pass- 
ing  it  on  the  26th,  and  sending  it  to  the  °y  congress. 
Senate  for  concurrence.  The  Senate  now  passed  the 
House  bill  on  March  1st,  and  the  House  imme 
diately  passed  the  Wilkins  bill,  against  the  protest  of 


238  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

the  South  Carolinians  that  it  could  now  have  no  pur 
pose  since  every  member  of  Congress  from  South  Caro 
lina  had  voted  for  the  new  Tariff  Act. 

The  President  signed  both  bills   at  the   same  time, 
The  nuiiifi-  March  2nd,   and  South   Carolina   rescinded 
nlnce  °w?th"  tne  Nullification  Ordinance, 
drawn.  ft  js  not  easy  to  see  what  principles  or 

what  party  finally  triumphed  in  this  contest,  or  to  com 
prehend  all  the  motives  of  the  chief  actors  in  it.  It  has 
been  said,  or  hinted,  that  Mr.  Calhoun, 
general68  re-  chagrined  and  disappointed  at  not  gaining 
the  presidency  in  1832,  was  induced  to  take 
the  course  which  he  followed  in  reference  to  nullifica 
tion  by  the  hope  of  breaking  up  the  Union  and  win 
ning,  thus,  the  presidency  of  a  Southern  confedera 
cy ;  that  President  Jackson  was  largely  influenced,  in 
the  decided  attitude  which  he  assumed,  by  the  desire 
to  take  revenge  on  Mr.  Calhoun  and  South  Carolina  for 
Mr.  Calhoun's  attempt  to  court-martial  him  more  than 
a  dozen  years  before,  and  for  South  Carolina's  slight 
upon  him  in  the  election  of  1832  ;  and  that  Mr.  Clay 
was  moved  far  more  by  his  jealousy  of  President  Jack 
son,  and  his  fear  of  trusting  him  with  extraordinary 
powers,  than  by  any  dread  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Union. 

There  is  probably  some  truth  in  certain,  if  not  in  all, 
of  these  speculations,  but  such  things  are  not  the  matters 
of  chief  value  in  the  search  for  the  line  of  development 
of  the  constitutional  history  of  this  country.  They  do 
indeed  help  us  to  appreciate  the  motives  for  the  partic 
ular  form  of  adjustment  put  upon  that  development  at 
any  stage  of  its  course  ;  but  our  chief  concern  must  be 
with  the  advance  or  retrogression  in  principle  of  that 
development,  our  question  must  be,  whether  the  Union 
and  the  Constitution  were  strengthened  or  weakened  by 


NULLIFICATION  239 

the  events  of  1832  and  1833,  whether  the  political 
nationality  of  the  country  was  cemented  or  suffered 
disintegration,  and  whether  strength  was  gathered,  or 
the  seeds  of  weakness  were  sown,  in  the  results  attained. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  present,  a  point  so 
much  more  national  than  any  reached  before  1 860,  the 
settlement  of  1833  is  usually  regarded  as  a  great  misfor 
tune,  as  a  fateful  error,  which  led  the  country  finally 
into  civil  war.  It  is  now  usually  said  that  the  national 
cause  lost  everything  in  principle,  and  that  nullification 
was  virtually  acknowledged  by  the  Act  of  Congress  in 
repealing  the  nullified  laws,  at  the  same  moment  that  it 
enacted  the  measure  for  upholding  the  supremacy  of  the 
laws  of  the  United  States. 

From  a  purely  historical  view  of  the  development  of 
the  constitutional  law  of  the  country,  this  proposition 
does  not  seem  to  be  true,  at  least  not  without  great 
modification.  From  such  a  point  of  view  it  seems  more 
correct  to  say,  that  the  doctrine  formulated  by  Mr. 
Calhoun  and  his  colleagues  in  South  Carolina  was  only 
the  exact  logical  statement  of  the  principles  advanced 
by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  1798,  principles  through  the  advo 
cacy  of  which  Mr.  Jefferson  and  the  Republicans  turned 
the  Federalists  out  of  power  and  captured  the  Govern 
ment  ;  that  under  the  pressure  of  foreign  war  and 
through  its  results,  the  Republican  practice  in  adminis 
tering  the  Government  had  been  driven  into  lines  almost, 
if  not  quite,  contradictory  to  the  Republican  doctrine ; 
that  in  the  gradual  relapse,  after  1815,  into  the  hum 
drum  of  peace  and  business,  the  conditions  were  being 
revived  for  the  reassertion  of  the  principles  of  1800  ; 
and  that,  under  such  conditions  and  in  such  a  period, 
the  doctrines  advanced  by  President  Jackson,  doctrines 
of  a  far  more  completely  national  system  of  sovereign 
ty*  government,  and  liberty  than  were  ever  expressed 


240  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

by  any  preceding  President,  certainly  mark  a  great  ad 
vance  in  the  development  of  the  national  theory  of  the 
Constitution. 

The  South  Carolinians  said  that  John  Quincy  Adams 
invented  these  doctrines,  and  that  Jackson  first  essayed 
their  application.  Even  Clay  declared  that  they  were 
an  advance  upon  his  own  views.  And  some  of  Jack 
son's  friends  undertook,  it  was  said  with  authority  from 
Jackson  himself,  to  explain  them  away,  so  startled  were 
they  by  their  strong  nationalism. 

But  the  spoken  word  cannot  be  recalled.  It  had  gone 
forth,  and  the  nation  had  approved  it.  The  politicians 
might  split  hairs  in  its  interpretation,  but  the  people 
had  heard  from  the  highest  authority  which  they  recog 
nized  that  the  United  States  was  a  sovereign  nation, 
and  that  the  attempt  of  any  combination  of  persons, 
whether  calling  themselves  a  " State"  or  not,  to  resist 
by  violence  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  withdraw  themselves  from  their  operation, 
was  rebellion,  which  the  President  was  empowered  and 
required  by  the  Constitution  to  suppress  with  the  whole 
physical  power  of  the  nation. 

And  besides  the  Proclamation  there  was  the  "Force 
Bill,"  which  rested  upon  the  same  theory  of  the  politi 
cal  system  of  the  country  as  the  Proclamation.  The 
Congress  as  well  as  the  President  was  now  inculcating 
the  national  doctrine.  Calhoun  and  his  friends  knew 
what  an  influence  this  would  exert.  He  said  that  he 
and  they  would  never  rest  content  until  this  measure 
was  expunged  from  among  the  Acts  of  Congress. 

It  is  true  that  the  passage  of  the  new  Tariff  Act  ap 
peared  to  take  the  virtue  out  of  the  Proclamation  and 
the  "Force  Bill ;"  but  it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the 
nullifiers  would  have  retreated  from  their  ground  so 
promptly,  to  say  the  least,  except  for  the  determined 


NULLIFICATION  241 

words  of  the  President  and  the  Congress,  and  the  popu 
lar  approval  with  which  they  were  received  ;  and  it  is 
almost  certain  that,  when  it  came  to  the  great  crisis, 
twenty-eight  years  later,  the  people  would  not  have  un 
derstood  and  supported  the  great  principle  that  the 
general  Government  has  the  right  of  self-preservation, 
in  the  exercise  of  all  its  powers,  throughout  the  whole 
territory  of  the  Union,  against  everything  and  every 
body  but  the  sovereign  nation  itself,  except  for  the  great 
education  in  national  principles  which  they  received 
from  the  Proclamation,  and  through  the  enactment  of 
the  law  which  gave  the  sanction  of  Congress  to  the  en 
forcement  of  its  principles. 


CHAPTER   XL 

ABOLITION 

The  Philosophy  of  Abolition—  William  Lloyd  Garrison—  The  Civil 
Status  under  the  Constitution  of  1787—  Points  at  which  Slavery 
Could  be  Legally  Attacked—  Garrison's  Methods—  The  South 
ampton  Massacre  —  The  Attempt  to  Suppress  the  Abolition 
Movement  at  the  North  —  Growth  of  the  Abolition  Movement  — 
The  Methods  of  the  Moderate  Abolitionists—  The  Abolition 
Petitions—  The  Earlier  Method  of  Dealing  with  the  Petitions- 
Beginning  of  the  Conflict  over  the  Abolition  Petitions—  The 
New  Method  for  Dealing  with  Petitions  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives—True  View  of  the  Right  of  Petition  —  Mr.  Polk's 
Fatal  Error  in  Regard  to  the  Right  of  Petition—  The  Pinckney 
Resolutions  —  The  New  Rule  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  Regard  to  the  Abolition  Petitions—  The  Increase  of  Peti 
tions,  and  the  Denunciation  of  the  Pinckney  Rule  —  The  Final 
Denial  of  the  Right  of  Petition  on  the  Subject  of  Slavery  by 
the  House  of  Representatives—  The  Abolition  Petitions  in  the 
Senate  —  Mr.  Rives  and  Mr.  Calhoun  in  Regard  to  the  Morality 
of  Slavery  —  Mr.  Calhoun  's  Resolutions  in  Regard  to  the  Politi 
cal  Relations  of  Slavery  —  The  Anti-Slavery  Petition  from  the 
Vermont  Legislature  —  The  Abolition  Documents  and  the  United 
States  Mails—  The  Postmaster-General's  Ruling  in  Regard  to 
the  Abolition  Documents  in  the  Mails  —  Jackson  on  the  Use  of 
the  Mails  by  the  Abolitionists—  Mr.  Calhoun's  Report  and  Bill 
on  the  Subject  —  Clay's  Criticism  of  Calhoun's  Proposition  — 
The  Act  of  Congress  Protecting  the  Abolition  Documents  in 
the  Mails—  General  Results  of  the  Struggle  over  the  Right  of 
Petition  and  the  Freedom  of  the  Mails. 


a  state  has  fairly   accomplished    the  primal 
end  of   establishing  its  governmental  system,  its  pub- 


ABOLITION  243 

lie  policy  will  be  found  to  be  pursuing,  in  ultimate 
generalization,  two  great  all-comprehending  purposes, 
namely,  national  development  and  universal 
human  progress.  Rarely,  if  ever,  will  any  th<Fg^ds  of 
state  be  found  to  have  succeeded  in  so  bal 
ancing  these  two  principal  objects  of  its  public  policy 
as  to  make  the  resultant  of  its  two  main  lines  of  prog 
ress  follow  an  unchanging  angle.  At  one  period  the 
principle  of  national  development  will  prevail,  even  to 
the  point  of  national  exclusiveness  ;  at  another,  an 
enthusiastic  humanism  will  almost  threaten  the  exist 
ence  of  national  distinctions.  But  in  all  the  convul 
sions  of  political  history,  described  as  advance  and  reac 
tion,  the  scientific  student  of  history  is  able  to  discover 
that  the  zigzags  of  progress  are  ever"  bearing  in  the 
general  direction  which  the  combined  impulses  toward 
nationalism  and  humanism  compel. 

After  the  humanitarian  outburst  of  the  revolutionary 
period  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  had 
expended  its  force,  the  states  of  the  world 
veered  in  their  policies  toward  the  line  of  poSf  of^the 
national  development.  The  United  States,  j^*St££ 
which  had  been  excessively  humanitarian  states6  United 
during  that  period,  both  in  its  doctrine  of 
rights  and  in  its  policy,  became,  in  the  succeeding 
period,  the  first  three  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
more  and'  more  national  in  disposition  and  in  practice, 
until  industrial  exclusiveness  and  race  domination  ap 
peared,  at  the  close  of  the  period,  to  be  the  sole  princi 
ples  of  the  policy  of  the  country. 

Had  the  two  elements  of  this  policy  been  equally,  or 
almost  equally,  sustained  throughout  the  whole  country, 
there  is  little  question  that  the  human  purpose,  the 
world-purpose,  as  Hegel  calls  it,  of  state  existence, 
would  have  been  ignored  to  a  higher  degree,  and  for  a 


244  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

longer  period,  than  it  was.  But  curiously  and  fortu 
nately,  the  race  domination  in  the  South  produced 
economic  conditions  which  demanded  trade  and  com 
merce  with  the  world,  and  which  finally  forced  upon 
the  North  the  conviction  that  the  cause  of  those  condi 
tions—race  domination,  slavery — must  be  removed,  in 
order  to  secure  the  industrial  interests  of  the  North 
against  the  competition  of  the  world's  markets.  The 
destruction  of  that  domination  must  proceed,  however, 
upon  a  humanitarian  principle,  namely,  the  right  of 
man  to  personal  liberty.  Thus  it  clearly  appears  that 
the  two  elements  of  the  national  exclusiveness  of  the 
United  States  in  1830  were,  in  the  peculiar  relation 
which  finally  obtained  between  them,  preparing  the 
nation  for  a  new  advance  in  the  direction  of  world  inter 
course  and  human  rights. 

In  the  summer  of  1830  the  wave  of  revolution  rolled 
again  over  Europe.  The  rights  of  man,  the  brother 
hood  of  man,  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  peo- 
tionof  iS!u"  pie,  were  the  principles  which  pressed  again 
to  the  front.  While  no  actual  connection 
can  be  established  between  the  Ee volution  of  1830  in 
Europe  and  the  rise  of  Abolition  in  the  United  States, 
yet  they  belong  to  the  same  period  of  time,  and  har 
monize  in  principle.  The  impulses  which  move  the 
human  race,  or  those  parts  of  the  human  race  which 
stand  upon  the  same  plane  of  civilization,  are  not 
broken  by  mountain  heights  or  broad  seas.  Their  mani 
festations  appear  spontaneously  and  coetaneously  in 
widely  separated  places. 

Before  1830,  indeed,  as  we  have  so  often  seen,  slavery 
in  the  United  States  had  been  regarded  as  a  grievous 
evil  by  most  of  the  great  spirits  of  the  age  and  country, 
and  schemes  for  gradual  emancipation  had  been  in 
vented,  and,  in  some  slight  degree,  had  been  put  into 


ABOLITION  245 

operation.  It  was,  however.,  the  humanitarian  outburst 
of  1830,  and  the  succeeding  years,  which  represented 
slavery  as  a  sin  and  a  crime  against  the  universal  prin 
ciple  of  human  liberty  and  the  rights  of  man,  a  sin 
which  called  for  immediate  expiation  by  instantaneous, 
unqualified,  and  uncompensated  abolition. 

There  is  nothing  strange  about  the  philosophy  of 
Abolition.  It  is  simply  the  idealistic  view  of  the  be 
ginning  and  the  progress  of  human  history. 

,.,  .    .       ,  J  „       The  philos- 

It  assumes  liberty  as  the  original  state  01  ophy  of  Abo- 
man,  condemns  every  species  of  modification 
of  liberty  suffered  by  any  human  being,  or  any  class  of 
human  beings,  as  resulting  from  the  unrighteous  act  of 
some  other  human  being,  or  class  or  race  of  human 
beings,  and  demands  the  immediate  discontinuance  of 
the  tyranny  as  the  only  approximately  adequate  satis 
faction  which  can  be  made  to  those  who  have  suffered 
that  tyranny.  It  is  the  orthodox,  paradisaical  view  of 
the  origin,  unity,  and  primal  perfection  of  the  human 
race.  It  is  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Declaration 
of-  Independence.  It  is  thorough-going,  radical  humani- 
tarianism.  Its  political  principle,  in  the  language  of 
its  chief  exponent,  was  :  "  The  world  our  country,  and 
all  mankind  our  countrymen." 

Over  against  it  stands  the  pessimistic  view  of  man  and 
of  civilization,  which  divides  the  human  race  into  the  few 
intelligent  and  good,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  ignorant 
and  vicious,  and  considers  the  permanent  subjection  of 
the  latter  to  the  former  as  the  divinely  constituted,  and 
therefore  the  permanent,  order  of  the  world. 

And  between  the  two  lies  the  true  historical  view, 
which  regards  liberty,  equality,  and  brotherhood  as  the 
products  of  civilization,  as  the  final,  not  the  primal, 
status  of  the  human  race,  and  determines  the  character 
of  every  stage  of  development  from  barbarism  to  civili- 


246  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

zation,  not  by  its  distance  from  the  perfect  condition, 
but  by  the  fact  of  its  advance  upon,,  or  its  retrogression 
from,  the  stage  immediately  antecedent. 

The  latter  is,  unquestionably,  the  true  philosophy  of 
history,  but  the  former  has  its  uses  as  well  as  its  abuses. 
It  contains  those  forces  of  mystical  enthusiasm,  self- 
sacrifice,  and  reckless  disregard  of  consequences  so 
necessary,  at  times,  to  drag  the  world  out  of  the  ruts  of 
materialism  and  the  love  of  peace.  Such  was  its  mis 
sion  in  the  fourth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  in 
American  history. 

If  we  must  give  a  name,  a  date,  and  a  place  to  the 
first  open  appearance  of  a  movement  which  was  a  prod 
uct  of  the  age,  that  name  is  Garrison ;  the 
Lloyd  GarrS  date,  the  beginning  of  the  year  1831 ;  and 
the  place,  Boston.  The  character  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  whether  noble  or  vulgar  ;  his  purposes, 
whether  generous  or  selfish  ;  and  the  motives  which  im 
pelled  him,  whether  narrow  and  personal  or  grandly 
humane,  are  not  subjects  for  treatment  in  a  work  upon 
constitutional  history.  Constitutional  history  has  to  do 
only  with  the  doctrines  of  political  ethics  and  public 
jurisprudence  which  he  formulated,  and  with  the  means 
proposed  by  him,  and  those  who  thought  and  acted  with 
him,  for  their  realization  ;  and  the  historian  does  neither 
him  nor  them  any  injustice  in  saying  that,  while  those 
doctrines  are  to  be  justified  from  the  point  of  view  of 
an  extreme  idealism,  the  means  for  their  realization,  at 
first  only  indicated,  but  later  boldly  and  rudely  ex 
pressed,  were  revolutionary,  almost  anarchic. 

There  is  now  certainly  little  question  that  the  deter 
mination  of  the  civil  status  of  all  persons  is,  from  an 
ethical  point  of  view,  a  matter  of  national  concern,  and 
that  that  status  must  be  fixed,  in  general  principle,  by 
a  national  act.  There  is  just  as  little  question  that 


ABOLITION  247 

the  denial  of  personal  liberty  to  any  human  being  of 
adult  years  does  not  comport  with  the  civilization  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  In  espousing  these  The  civil 
principles  the  Abolitionists  were  only  proph-  th?uconUstitu- 
ets  ahead  of  their  time,  and  must  be  ac-  tionofirar. 
corded  the  honor  which  belongs  to  such.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  entirely  unquestionable  that  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  recognized  to  the  Com 
monwealths,  respectively,  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
civil  status  of  persons  belonging  within  their  several 
jurisdictions,  and  it  is  entirely  improbable  that  the 
Constitution  of  1787  could  ever  have  been  established 
without  the  guarantees,  expressed  and  implied  in  it,  of 
such  power  to  the  Commonwealths.  There  is  no  ques 
tion  at  all  that  the  slavery  or  freedom  of  the  negro  race 
within  the  several  Commonwealths  was,  under  the  Con 
stitution  of  1787,  not  only  left,  as  it  had  been  before,  a 
matter  for  each  Commonwealth  to  determine  for  itself, 
but  that  the  exclusive  power  of  determination  in  regard 
to  it  was  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  to  the  several 
Commonwealths.  The  Commonwealths  in  which  slave- 
holding  generally  and  extensively  prevailed  regarded 
the  guarantee  as  the  principal  consideration  for  their 
assent  to  the  "  compact."  The  attempt  to  violate,  or 
weaken,  or  even  to  cast  doubt  upon,  these  guarantees 
appeared  to  them  to  be  an  attack  upon  the  funda 
mental  covenants  of  the  Union.  The  Constitution 
might,  indeed,  be  so  amended  as  to  withdraw  these 
powers  and  guarantees  from  the  Commonwealths,  by  the 
regular  procedure  provided  in  the  Constitution  itself ; 
and  the  general  G-overnment  was  vested  by  the  Consti 
tution  with  the  general  powers  of  exclusive  government 
in  the  Territories,  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  the 
places  owned  by  the  United  States  within  Common 
wealths  and  used  by  the  general  Government  for  govern- 


248  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

mental  purposes.  But  so  long  as  the  Constitution  re 
mained  what  it  was,  there  was  no  constitutional  power 
in  the  general  Government  to  attack  slavery  in  the  Com 
monwealths  ;  and  the  slaveholders  could  certainly  claim 
that,  in  the  exercise  of  its  powers  in  the  Territories,  the 
District,  and  other  places  where  those  powers  were  ex 
clusive,  the  general  Government  should  act  fairly  toward 
all  the  members  of  the  Union. 

Nevertheless,  here  were  legal  points  of  attack  for  the 
Abolitionists.     They  might   memorialize  Congress  for 

Points  at  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  and 
?ouiCdhbeiaegeaY-  in  the  District,  and  for  the  initiation  of  an 
iy  attacked.  amendment  which  would  abolish  slavery  in 
the  Commonwealths  or  would  give  Congress  the  power  to 
do  so,  and  they  might  appeal  to  the  legislatures  of  the 
Commonwealths  to  demand  of  Congress  the  calling  of  a 
constitutional  convention  of  the  United  States  to  ini- 

Garrison's  tiate  such  an  amendment.  But  Garrison 
methods.  Would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Constitu 
tion,  or  with  existing  legal  methods.  He  denounced 
the  Constitution,  "  as  a  covenant  with  death  and  an 
agreement  with  hell,"  and  declared  that  he  wanted  "no 
union  with  slaveholders."  His  violent  language,  his 
repudiation  of  vested  rights  and  constitutional  agree 
ments,  and  his  fanatical  disregard  of  other  men's  opin 
ions  and  feelings,  led  the  people  both  of  the  North  and 
the  South  to  believe  that  his  methods  were  incendiary 
and  his  morals  loose ;  that  he  and  his  co-workers  were 
planning  and  plotting  slave  insurrection,  and  thereby 
the  wholesale  massacre  of  slaveholders ;  and  that  he 
and  they  were  endeavoring  to  attain,  through  violence 
and  anarchy,  a  leadership  which  they  could  not  other 
wise  reach. 

In  August  of  1831,  a  slave  insurrection  broke  out  in 
Southampton  County,  Va.,  under  the  leadership  of  a 


ABOLITION  249 

negro  named  Nat  Turner,  and  more  than  sixty  white 
persons,  most  of  them  women  and  children,  were  mas 
sacred  in  cold  blood.  The  Southerners  said,  The  gouth 
and  no  doubt  believed,  that  the  insurrec-  £™Peton  mas" 
tion  was  incited  by  the  Abolitionists  in  the 
North,  Governor  Floyd,  of  Virginia,  declared,  in  his 
message  to  the  Legislature  upon  the  subject,  that  there 
was  ample  proof  of  it  in  the  documents  accompanying 
the  message.  The  great  mass  of  the  people  at  the  North 
believed  the  same  thing.  The  Abolitionist  historians 
assert,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  was  no  connection 
between  the  work  of  the  Abolitionists  and  this  event. 
We  shall  probably  never  know  whether  there  was  or 
not.  This  much  we  can  say,  that  the  radical  character 
of  the  Abolition  doctrines  and  the  violence  of  the  lan 
guage  in  which  they  were  expressed — not  so  much  be 
fore  as  after  this  event,  indeed — produced  the  universal 
feeling,  both  in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  that  these 
doctrines  and  this,  event  were  in  perfect  harmony,  and 
that  the  latter  might  very  naturally  be  the  outcome  of 
the  former.  The  moral  sentiment  of  the  North  was 
not  prepared  for  the  destruction  of  slavery  by  any  such 
means.  It  considered  these  methods  as  containing  ten 
times  more  evil  and  barbarism  than  slavery  itself.  It  is 
just  to  say  that  what  appeared  to  be  the  methods  of  the 
Abolitionists  were  revolting  to  the  moral  feelings  of  all 
the  decent  people  of  the  North,  and  to  ninety-nine  one- 
hundredths  of  all  the  people  of  the  North,  while  the 
Southerners  saw  in  them  nothing  but  the  destruction  of 
all  law  and  order,  the  plunder  of  their  property,  the  burn 
ing  of  their  firesides,  and  the  massacre  of  their  families. 
The  pronounced  and  determined  manner  in  which  the 
people  of  the  North  went  about  the  work  of  suppressing 
the  agitation  occasioned  by  the  Abolitionists  is  ample 
evidence  to  any  sane  mind  that  the  indignation  of  a 


250  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

righteous  conscience  was  fully  aroused,  and  not  the  fury 
of  a  guilty  conscience. 

The  details  of  the  breaking  up  of  the  Abolition  meet 
ings  and  of  the  destruction  of  the  Abolition  printing- 
The  attem  t  Presses  by  *ne  citizens  of  the  Northern  Com- 
to    suppress  monwealths,  as  well  as  those  of  the  South- 

the   Abolition 

movement  at  ampton  massacre,  may  be  passed  over,  in  a 
work  like  this,  with  the  single  remark  that 
only  one  person,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lovejoy,  was  killed  in 
these  collisions  ;  that  this  happened  under  circum 
stances  of  some  aggravation ;  and  that,  if  the  excitement 
at  the  South  over  the  massacre  of  sixty-one  innocent 
persons  was  out  of  proportion  with  the  event,  then  not 
too  much  should  be  made  out  of  the  killing  of  a  single 
person,  who  was  not  entirely  guiltless  on  his  part  of  giv 
ing  provocation. 

The  things  of  importance  to  the  student  of  constitu 
tional  history  in  connection  with  these  events  are  the 
increase  of  the  Abolitionists  in  number,  their  organiza 
tion  into  societies,  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  Southerners 
with  the  unofficial,  merely  popular,  way  of  dealing  with 
the  agitation  at  the  North,  and  their  demands  upon 
the  governments  of  the  Northern  Commonwealths  to 
deal  with  the  Abolitionists  through  the  processes  of  their 
criminal  law. 

So  long  as  men  only  talk  and  write,  it  is  the  impulse 
of  our  Anglo-Saxon  character  to  place  no  further  re 
straint  upon  them  than  the  law  of  slander  and  libel  of 
private  character  imposes,  no  matter  what  may  be,  or 
may  be  thought  to  be,  the  ultimate  consequences  of 
acting  according  to  what  they  may  say  or  write.  To 
deny  this  privilege  to  anybody  appears  like  a  deprivation 
of  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  appears  like 
persecution.  There  is  no  country  in  the  world  in  which 
the  making  of  martyrs  is  an  easier  procedure  than  in 


ABOLITION 

the  United  States.  Persecution  is  the  soil  in  which 
new  movements  grow  best,  no  matter  what  may  be  the 
character  of  the  movement. 

In  a  single  year  from  the  date  of  the  first  number  of 
Garrison's  newspaper,  The  Liberator,  that  is,  in  January 
of  1832,  the  New  England  Anti-slavery  So 
ciety  was  formed,  and  in  December  of  1833  the  'Abolition 
the  American  Anti-slavery  Society  was  or-  E 
ganized,  which  soon  established  branches  in  many 
quarters.  The  exaggerated  demands  of  the  Southern 
ers,  that  the  Northern  Commonwealths  should  forbid 
Abolition  agitation  by  law,  thus  identifying  the  in 
terests  of  slavery  with  the  denial  of  the  freedom  of 
speaking  and  writing  in  the  Northern  Commonwealths, 
helped  greatly  to  swell  the  ranks  of  the  Abolition 
ists,  and  to  mollify  public  opinion  in  the  North  against 
them. 

The  new  Abolitionists  were  naturally  of  a  more  mod 
erate  type  than  Garrison,  and  most  of  them  would  lis 
ten  only  to  regular  legal  methods  for  the  The  meth- 
accomplishment  of  their  purposes.  The  Moderate  lt»- 
quickening  of  the  public  opinion  in  the  °iitiomgts. 
North,  the  conviction  of  the  slaveholders  themselves  of 
the  error,  if  not  the  sin,  of  slavery,  and  the  appeal  to 
the  Government  to  do  all  within  its  constitutional 
powers  against  slavery,  were  the  only  means  which 
Hiany  of  them  were  willing  to  employ.  Their  petitions 
to  Congress,  and  the  transmission  of  their  literature  of 
Abolition  to  the  Southerners  through  the  United  States 
mails,  brought  the  whole  question  of  their  rights  and 
purposes  before  the  Government,  and  before  the  nation, 
for  which  that  Government  was  bound  to  act  with  im 
partial  justice  to  all  its  parts. 

Petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  had  been  sent  to  Congress,  generally  from 


252  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Quaker  sources,  almost  from  the  day  that  the  capital 
of  the  country  was  established  there,  but  they  were 
The  Aboii-  n°t  numerous  and  were  not  pushed  by  any 
tion  petitions.  anti_slavery  organization.  In  the  session  of 
1826-27,  a  petition  from  citizens  of  Baltimore,  probably 
instigated  by  Benjamin  Lundy,  was  presented,  which 
contained  the  same  prayer ;  and  in  the  session  of 
1827-28,  one  of  like  tenor  from  citizens  of  the  District 
itself  was  presented.  Such  petitions  were  usually  read 
and  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  District.  They 
were  irritating  to  the  slaveholders  from  the  first,  but  it 
was  not  until  after  the  excitement  of  the  Southampton 
massacre  that  they  were  angrily  resented  as  an  interfer 
ence  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  slaveholding 
Commonwealths. 

It  was  in  the  session  of  1831-32,  that  the  first  mutter- 
ings  of  the  petition  storm  were  heard.  On  December 
12th,  1831,  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  presented,  in 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  fifteen  petitions  from 
sundry  inhabitants  of  Pennsylvania,  the  chief  prayer  of 
all  of  which  was  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia.  Mr.  Adams  said  that  he  would  give 
no  countenance  to  that  prayer,  but  that  there  was  a 
prayer  in  the  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  in  the  District,  which,  he  thought,  might  properly 
be  considered,  and  he  moved  the  reference  of  the  peti 
tions,  for  this  purpose,  to  the  regular  committee  of  the* 
House  for  the  District. 

There  was  in  this  little  to  indicate  the  terrible  earnest 
ness  which  Mr.  Adams  later  displayed  in  behalf  of  the 
Abolition  petitions.  He  seemed  at  this  time  to  be  an 
noyed  at  being  asked  to  present  them,  and  to  feel  that 
there  were  superior  moral  reasons  why  a  slavery  agita 
tion  should  not  be  excited  within  the  halls  of  Congress. 
But  all  this  was  soon  to  change.  Mr.  Adams's  growth 


ABOLITION  253 

in  radical  Abolitionism  is  as  marked  a  feature  of  the 
struggle  over  the  right  of  petition  as  Mr.  Calhoun's 
declaration  of  the  righteousness  of  slavery. 

The  committee  on  the  District  reported,  on  December 
19th,  that  as  the  District  was  composed  of  cessions  of 
territory  from  Maryland  and  Virginia,  it  The  earlier 
would,  in  the  opinion  of  the  members  of  the  Baling0  dwith 
committee,  be  unwise,  if  not  unjust,  for  Con-  the  petitions, 
gress  to  interfere  in  the  question  of  the  relation  of  slave 
to  master  in  the  District,  until  Virginia  and  Maryland 
should  take  steps  to  eradicate  the  evil  from  their  re 
spective  territories.  This  report  seemed  to  settle  the 
question  for  the  session,  and  no  more  petitions  appeared 
in  either  House. 

In  the  middle  of  the  next  session,  Mr.  Hiester,  of 
Pennsylvania,  presented  a  petition  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  from  sundry  citizens  of  Pennsylvania 
praying  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  This  was  again  a  Quaker  petition,  as  were 
the  petitions  presented  by  Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Hiester 
moved  to  refer-  the  petition  to  the  committee  on  the 
District,  and  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  rashly  called  for 
the  yeas  and  nays,  which  opened  the  question  to  debate. 
Mr.  Adams  immediately  pointed  out  this  fact  to  Mr. 
Mason,  and  advised  him  to  withdraw  his  motion,  which 
advice  Mr.  Mason  wisely  adopted.  The  petition  went 
to  the  Committee,  and  nothing  further  was  heard  of  it. 

It  was  first  in  the  session  of  i.833-34,  that  petitions  for 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  from  others  than 
Quakers,  presumably  from  the  members  of  the  new  anti- 
slavery  societies,  appeared  in  both  Houses  of  Congress. 
Those  presented  in  the  Senate  were  referred  to  the  com 
mittee  of  the  Senate  for  the  District,  and  nothing  more 
was  heard  of  them.  Those  presented  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  were  dealt  with  in  the  same  manner. 


254  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

It  was  not  until  the  session  of  1834-35,  that  the  first 
real  note  of  the  conflict  was  sounded.  On  January 
26th,  1834,  Mr.  Dickson,  of  New  York,  presented 
several  petitions  praying  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  and  of  slavery  in  the  District.  They  were  laid 
over  until  February  2nd,  when  Mr.  Dickson  called  them 
up,  made  a  rather  irritating  speech,  in  which  he  said 
that  the  committee  on  the  District  had  smothered  all 
such  petitions  referred  to  it,  and  moved  the  reference  of 
those  offered  by  him  to  a  select  committee. 

Mr.  Chinn,  of  Virginia,  the  chairman  of  the  regular 
committee  on  the  District,  resented  Mr.  Dicksoir's  rude 
assault,  and  moved  to  lay  the  petitions  and  Mr.  Dick- 
son's  motion  on  the  table.  The  House  voted  Mr. 
Chinn's  motion  by  a  large  majority. 

At  length,  in  the  session  of  1835-36,  the  storm  broke 

in  all  its  fury,  in  both  the  Senate  ^and  the  House.     It 

began  in  the  House,  December  16th,  1835, 

Beginning  '  .    ' 

of  the  con-  upon  the  presentation  of  a  petition,  contam- 

flict  over   the     .         ,,  , 

Abolition  peti-  mg  the  usual  prayer  in  regard  to  slavery  in 
the  District,  by  Mr.  Fairfield,  of  Maine. 
Mr.  Cramer,  of  New  York,  moved  to  lay  the  petition  on 
the  table,  and  the  motion  was  voted.  Mr.  Fairfield  im 
mediately  presented  another  petition  of  like  purport, 
and  himself  moved  that  it  be  laid  upon  the  table.  Mr. 
Boon,  of  Indiana,  asked  that  the  petition  be  read,  which 
was  done.  Thereupon  Mr.  Slade,  of  Vermont,  moved 
that  it  be  printed.  This  meant,  of  course,  that  Mr.  Slade 
was  determined  to  have  the  slavery  question  agitated  in 
Congress,  if  he  could.  Upon  him  rather  than  upon 
Mr.  Adams  rests  the  honor,  or  the  blame,  whichever  it 
may  be,  of  provoking  the  excitement  over  the  Abolition 
petitions,  and  of  upholding  the  right  of  petition  in  the 
most  extreme  degree. 

The  House  first  voted  to  lay  the  petition  on  the  table. 


ABOLITION  255 

The  Speaker,  Mr.  James  K.  Polk,  then  put  Mr.  Slade's 
motion  to  print.  Whereupon  Mr.  Slade  attempted  to  de 
bate  the  whole  question  of  slavery  in  the  District  under 
the  motion.  The  Speaker  ruled  that  the  contents  of 
the  petition  could  not  be  debated  under  the  motion  to 
print.  Mr.  Vanderpoel,  of  New  York,  then  moved  to 
lay  Mr.  Blade's  motion  on  the  table,  and  the  House 
voted  to  do  so  by  a  large  majority. 

Two  days  later  the  play  was  on  again.  Mr.  Jackson, 
of  Massachusetts,  presented  a  petition  from  sundry  citi 
zens  of  Massachusetts,  containing  the  usual  Mr.  Ham- 
prayer,  and  moved  its  reference  to  a  select 
committee.  Whereupon  Mr.  Hammond,  of 
South  Carolina,  moved  that  the  petition  tion- 
should  not  be  received.  This  was  the  ultra-Southern 
position  in  regard  to  the  anti-slavery  petitions,  and  Mr. 
Hammond's  enunciation  of  it  in  the  House  antedates 
Mr.  Calhoun's  in  the  Senate  by  more  than  a  fortnight. 

The  Constitution  guarantees  the  right  of  the  people 
to  assemble  peaceably  and  petition  the  Government  for 
redress  of  grievances.  The  right  to  petition  certainly 
includes  the  right  to  have  the  petitions  heard  by  the 
body  petitioned.  If  the  body  refuses  to  receive  the  pe 
tition,  it  prevents  its  being  heard,  and  by  preventing  its 
being  heard  it  makes  the  right  itself  a  mockery.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Constitution  vests  in  each  House  of 
Congress  the  power  to  make  its  own  rules  of  procedure. 
This  power  must,  oi  course,  be  so  used  as  not  to  vio 
late  any  other  clause  of  the  Constitution.  Under  this 
power,  however,  each  House  may  and  should  protect 
itself  against  all  obstacles  thrown  by  outsiders  in  the 
way  of  the  discharge  of  its  duties  in  legislating  for  the 
country.  If  any  number  of  people  undertake,  by  an 
abuse  of  the  right  of  petition,  to  obstruct  the  legitimate 
work  of  the  Congress  for  the  whole  people,  each  House 


256  THE  MIDDLE  PEEIOD 

certainly  has  the  right  to  meet  this  attempt  in  any  way 
which  will  not  deny  the  right  of  petition,  the  right  of 
any  one  or  any  number  of  the  people  to  be  heard  in  ask 
ing  for  a  redress  of  grievances. 

Down  to  1834,  the  custom  of  procedure  in  Congress 
had  been  to  receive,  hear,  and  refer  all  petitions.  That 
was  going  one  step  farther  than  was  required  by  the 
constitutional  right  of  petition  ;  still  it  was  the  regular 
course,  and  such  men  as  Mr.  Adams  thought  it  unwise 
to  depart  from  the  custom  in  the  case  of  the  Abolition 
petitions.  At  any  rate,  Mr.  Hammond's  motion  was  a 
new  proposition.  The  Speaker  said  that  he  was  "not 
aware  that  such  a  motion  had  ever  been  sustained  by  the 
former  practice  of  the  House,"  and  appeared  to  rule  Mr. 
Hammond's  motion  out  of  order.  A  confused  wrangle 
ensued  over  the  attitude  assumed  by  the  Speaker,  dur 
ing  which  Mr.  Hammond  made  a  motion  to  reject  the 
petition,  and  the  Speaker,  becoming  confused  by  the  two 
motions,  the  one  not  to  receive,  and  the  other  to  reject, 
and  knowing  that  the  House  could  of  course  reject  the 
prayer  of  a  petition,  yielded  to  the  representations  of  Mr. 
Hammond,  and  put  Mr.  Hammond's  motion  not  to  re 
ceive  the  petition  to  the  House.  The  House  voted  not 
to  refuse  to  receive  the  petition,  but  the  ruling  of  the 
Speaker  in  putting  the  motion  implied  that  the  House 
possessed  the  power  to  refuse  to  receive,  that  is,  to  refuse 
to  hear,  a  petition.  Another  confused  wrangle  ensued 
over  the  question  whether  the  House  had  voted  merely 
The  new  no^  ^°  re^use  *°  receive  the  petition,  or  had 
method  ^f  or  voted  to  consider  its  contents  at  once.  After 
pe?itk.n8W1in  a  day  of  heated  debate  and  three  days  of  ad- 

the  House  of     .         J  ,  .,  J  „ 

Represent  a-  journment,    during   which   excited   feelings 
were  somewhat  calmed,  the  House  reversed 
all  former  action,  and  voted  to  lay  the  petition  and  all 
the  motions  relating  to  it  on  the  table. 


ABOLITION  257 

Another  petition,  which,  during  this  wrangle  had 
been  inadvertently  referred  to  the  committee  on  the 
District,  was  now  recalled  by  a  motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  of  reference.  It  was  upon  this  motion  that  Mr. 
Adams  made  his  first  great  appeal  for  the  right  of  pe 
tition.  As  we  have  seen,  his  view  before  this  was  that 
petitions  must  be  received,  heard,  and  referred.  In  this 
speech,  however,  he  indicated  that  there  should  be  a  re 
port  from  the  committee,  and  a  vote  upon  the  report. 
Mr.  Jones,  of  Virginia,  met  Mr.  Adams's  as-  True  view 
sertions  quite  successfully,  and  showed  con-  of  the^nght 
clusively  that,  if  the  right  of  petition 
should  be  interpreted  to  reach  any  farther  than  the 
right  to  have  the  petition  received  and  heard,  it  would 
so  modify  the  constitutional  right  of  the  House  to  es 
tablish  its  own  rules  of  procedure  as  to  put  it  in  the 
power  of  a  few  determined  obstructionists  outside  the 
House,  acting  with  a  single  member  of  the  House,  to 
prevent  the  House  from  doing  anything  but  consider 
petitions  upon  a  single  subject,  sacrificing  thus  the  in 
terests  of  the  whole  people  to  the  obstinacy  of  a  small 
number  of  the  people. 

Mr.  Jones's  argument  was  so  sound  and  rational  that 
it  would  probably  have  settled  the  minds  of  almost  all 
of  the  members  in  regard  to  the  complicated  questions 
of  the  right  of  petition,  and  the  powers  of  the  House 
over  its  rules  of  procedure,  had  not  Mr.  Granger,  of  New 
York,  and  Mr.  Ingersoll,  of  Pennsylvania,  thrown  an 
other  firebrand  into  the  House  during  this  debate,  in 
the  form  of  an  intimation  that  Congress  The  power 
had  the  constitutional  power  to  abolish  slav- 


ery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.    The  South-  the  District  of 

,,    ,  Columbia. 

erners  now  advanced  to  the  position  of  deny 
ing  that  power  to  Congress,  and  Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia, 
in  a  long  and  violent  speech,  demanded  that  Congress 
17 


258  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

should  pass  a  resolution  disclaiming  the  possession  of 
any  such  power.  Mr.  Slade  immediately  accepted  the 
challenge  of  Mr.  Wise,  and  delivered  an  anti-slavery 
speech  in  reply,  such  as  had  never  before  been  heard 
upon  the  floors  of  Congress.  He  not  only  vindicated 
the  power  of  Congress  over  the  question  of  slavery  in 
the  District,  but  he  discussed  the  whole  question  of 
slavery  upon  its  merits.  His  words  were  simply  a  dec 
laration  of  relentless  war  upon  slavery  in  the  halls  of 
Congress.  They  created  indescribable  consternation  in 
all  parts  of  the  House,  and  roused  the  resentment  and 
anger  of  the  slaveholders  to  a  veritable  fury.  In  the 
midst  of  the  confusion,  Mr.  Garland,  of  Virginia,  gained 
the  Speaker's  recognition,  and  made  a  good  argument 
against  some  of  Mr.  Blade's  more  radical  statements. 
So  soon  as  he  had  finished,  Mr.  Mann,  of  New  York, 
moved  to  stop  the  debate  with  the  previous  question. 
This  was  voted,  and  the  Speaker  then  put  the  motion 
for  the  reconsideration  of  the  reference  of  the  petition, 
under  which  motion  this  debate  had  proceeded.  This 
was  voted,  and  immediately  the  motion  was  made  to  lay 
the  recalled  petition,  with  the  reconsidered  motion  to 
refer  it,  on  the  table.  This  was  voted  by  a  majority  of 
more  than  two  to  one. 

Evidently  the  House  thought  that,  in  receiving  and 
hearing  the  petitions  and  then  laying  them  on  the  table, 
it  had  found  the  solution  of  the  question,  which  neither 
violated  the  right  of  petition  in  the  people,  nor  en 
croached  upon  the  power  of  the  House  over  its  rules  of 
procedure,  nor  opened  the  way  for  anti-slavery  agitation 
in  Congress. 

It  would  have  been  wise  for  the  slaveholders  to  have 
left  this  solution  of  the  question  undisturbed,  but  they 
did  not  see  it  so.  On  January  4th,  1836,  Mr.  Adams 
presented  a  petition  from  sundry  citizens  of  Massa- 


ABOLITION  259 

chu setts  containing  the  usual  prayer,  and  said  that  "  in 
conformity  with  the  course  heretofore  adopted,  he 
should  move  that  the  petition,  without  read- 

Mr      Folk's 

ing,  be  laid  on  the  table."  Mr.  Patton  inter-  fatal 'error  in 
rupted  Mr.  Adams  with  an  inquiry  addressed  ri|htdof°Ped- 
to  the  Speaker  as  to  whether  the  petition  had  tlon' 
been  received  by  the  House,  and  the  Speaker  replied  that 
it  had  not.  He  said  that,  upon  looking  up  the  author 
ities,  he  "  had  formed  the  opinion  that  the  first  ques 
tion  to  be  decided,  upon  the  motion  of  a  member,  was 
whether  the  petition  be  received  or  not."  The  Speaker, 
Mr.  Polk,  had  now  come  out  of  his  uncertainty  about  the 
right  of  petition  including  the  reception  of  the  petition 
by  the  House,  as  a  constitutional  obligation,  and  now 
definitely  denied  that  the  right  of  petition  included 
the  right  to  have  the  petition  received  by  the  House. 
This  was  a  fatal  move,  a  fatal  mistake  upon  his  part. 
The  object  professedly  sought  by  all  parties,  except 
such  Abolitionists  as  Mr.  Slade,  was  the  prevention  of 
agitation  upon  the  slavery  question  in  the  halls  of  Con 
gress.  Whether  all  were  sincere  in  this  profession  is 
questionable.  It  had  been  insinuated  that  there  were 
agitators  upon  this  question  from  both  sections  of  the 
country,  who  were  disingenuously  claiming  to  be  classed 
with  the  maintainers  of  peace.  It  does  really  seem  that 
the  innuendo  was  justified  as  to  certain  of  the  South 
erners  by  the  position  now  assumed  by  Mr.  Patton  and 
Mr.  Polk,  and  then  by  Mr.  Glascock,  who,  immedi 
ately  after  the  ruling  of  the  Speaker,  moved  that  this 
petition  be  not  received.  While  Mr.  Adams,  who  sin 
cerely  believed  that  reference  as  well  as  reception  was 
a  necessary  consequence  of  the  right  of  petition,  had  ac 
commodated  himself  to  the  decision  which  the  House 
had  made  a  fortnight  before,  these  Southern  gentle 
men  were  now  proposing  to  drive  the  House  from 


260  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

the  solid  middle  ground,  then  occupied,  toward  a  posi 
tion  which  the  majority  considered  to  be  an  encroach 
ment  upon  the  constitutional  right  of  petition,  a 
movement  upon  their  part  which  was  certain,  and 
known  by  all  to  be  certain,  to  provoke  an  excited  debate 
upon  the  question  of  slavery.  It  may  be  that  they 
thought  the  rejection  of  one  of  these  anti-slavery  peti 
tions  would  prevent  any  more  from  being  presented, 
and  that  it  was  better  to  have  it  out  once  for  all  than  to 
be  continually  receiving,  and  listening  to  the  reading 
of,  these  petitions.  If  so,  they  were  wofully  mistaken. 
Mr.  Adams  now  made  one  more  effort  to  preserve  the 
Southerners  against  the  consequences  of  their  own  folly. 
Mr.  Adams's  He  undertook  to  arrest  the  debate  bv  calling 
tf  pVe'vTft  for  the  application  of  the  forty-fifth  rule  of 
tionerin  acon-  the  House,  which  required  that  no  petition 
gress.  should  be  debated  or  decided  on  the  day  of 

its  presentation.  But  the  Speaker  now  decided  that 
this  rule  could  not  apply  to  a  petition  until  it  had 
been  received.  The  gates  of  Janus  were  flung  wide 
open,  and  the  House  went  into  an  agitation  upon  the 
subject,  to  which  all  that  had  gone  before  was  only  a 
prelude.  The  struggle  lasted  for  more  than  four 
months,  during  which  period  petitions  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District,  signed  by  over  thirty  thou 
sand  persons,  were  poured  into  the  House.  The  slavery 
question  was  at  last  brought  before  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  a  way  most  highly  satisfactory  to  the 
most  radical  Abolitionist,  and  no  matter  what  the  imme 
diate  compromise  upon  the  subject  might  be,  it  was 
evident  to  all  farseeing  minds  then  that  a  death-blow 
had  been  struck  at  slavery. 

There  is  not  space  in  this  work  to  recount  the  scenes 
enacted  on  the  floor  of  the  House  during  these  four 
exciting  months,  or  even  to  give  a  resume  of  the  debate. 


ABOLITION  261 

The  conflict  was  ended  for  the  moment  by  the  adop 
tion,  on  May  25th  (1836),  of  a  series  of  resolutions  re 
ported  by  a  committee  appointed  for  the 
purpose,  of  which  Mr.  Pinckney,  of  South  ney 


Carolina,  was  the  chairman.  These  resolu-  fc 
tions  provided  :  "  That  Congress  possesses  no  con 
stitutional  authority  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  any  of  the  States  of  this  Con 
federacy;  that  Congress  ought  not  to  interfere  with 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  and  whereas  it  is 
extremely  important  and  desirable  that  the  agitation  of 
this  subject  should  be  finally  arrested,  for  the  purpose 
of  restoring  tranquillity  to  the  public  mind, 
that  all  petitions,  memorials,  propositions,  or  papers, 
relating  in  any  way,  or  to  any  extent  whatsoever,  to  the 
subject  of  slavery,  or  the  abolition  of  slavery,  shall, 
without  being  printed  or  referred,  be  laid  upon  the 
table,  and  that  no  further  action  whatever  shall  be  had 
thereon." 

The  solution  thus  reached  by  the  House  of  the 
question  of  the  power  of  the  House  to  control  its  pro 
cedure,  over  against  the  right  of  a  number 


of    individuals   to   excite   interminable   dis-  rule  of  the 

T  ,  ,  ,        ,  .,         House  of  Rep- 

cussions  and  paralyze  the  business  of  the  resentativee  m 
House  by  flooding  it  with  petitions  upon  Aboiition°petf- 
one  and  the  same  subject,  was  the  laying  tlons' 
of  all  such  petitions  on  the  table  as  a  rule  of  the  House. 
Of  course  this  rule  must  be  readopted  at  the  begin 
ning  of  each  session,  and  a  debate  upon  the  readop- 
tion  might  be  thus  precipitated,  but,  so  long  as  a 
majority  supported  the  rule,  the  previous  question 
could  be  voted  after  giving  a  reasonable  opportunity 
to  discuss  the  question  of  readoption,  and  such  discus 
sion  was  then  not  likely  to  be  renewed  during  the 
session.  It  was  possible  also  for  petitions  to  be  pre- 


262  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

sented,  at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  before  the  re- 
adoption  of  the  rule,  and  these  could  be  disposed  of 
only  by  a  special  vote  in  each  case  to  lay  upon  the 
table.  There  were  thus  still  opportunities  for  the  Abo 
litionists  to  cause  the  House  to  resolve  itself  into  some 
thing  more  like  a  bear-garden  than  an  assembly  of 
Witan,  as  was  evident  from  the  scenes  which  were  en 
acted  on  February  6th,  1837,  when  Mr.  Adams  came 
into  the  House  with  a  petition  in  regard  to  slavery 
signed  by  some  twenty  slaves,  and  asked  the  Speaker 
if  it  came  under  the  rule  for  laying  such  petitions 
on  the  table.  Everybody  supposed  that  the  petition 
contained  the  usual  prayer  for  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
and  that  the  Abolitionists  had  incited  the  slaves  to  the 
act.  Mr.  Adams  allowed  the  excitement  produced  by 
this  supposition  to  rage  for  a  time,  and  then  coolly  and 
derisively  informed  the  House  that  the  prayer  of  the 
petition  was  not  for  abolition  but  against  it.  The  mem 
bers  now  felt  that  Mr.  Adams  was  playing  with  the 
peace,  order,  and  dignity  of  the  House  in  a  scandalous 
way,  and  for  several  days  the  question  of  censuring  him 
was  considered,  but  the  matter  was  finally  disposed  of 
by  a  resolution  declaring  :  < '  That  slaves  do  not  possess 
the  right  of  petition  secured  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution." 

At  the  beginning  of  the  next  session,  that  of  1837-38, 
Mr.  Slade  seized  the  opportunity  to  present  an  abolition 
petition  before  the  re-enactment  of  the  Pinckney  rule, 
and  to  provoke  a  debate  on  the  subject  of  slavery'.  He 
was  substantially  foiled,  however,  by  a  vote  to  adjourn, 
and,  upon  reassembly,  by  a  suspension  of  the  rules  and  a 
re-enactment  of  the  resolution  to  lay  everything  in  ref 
erence  to  slavery  on  the  table.  This  rule  covered  all 
matters  relating  to  slavery  in  the  Territories  as  well  as 
in  the  Commonwealths  and  the  District. 


ABOLITION  263 

The  more  the  House  did  to  discourage  the  petitions 
the  more  they  increased.  In  two  years  from  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Pinckney  resolutions  the  num-  The  increase 
ber  of  petitioners  was  tenfold  greater  than  and  thfdenun- 
it  was  before  their  enactment.  At  the  same  pf  ^"kVey 
time  the  legislatures  of  the  New  England  rule- 
Commonwealths  were  passing  resolutions  declaring  the 
rule  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  regard  to  the 
abolition  petitions  to  be  a  violation  of  the  people's  con 
stitutional  right,  and  also  declaring  that  Congress  pos 
sessed  the  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

To  meet  these  demonstrations  of  increasing  strength 
and  increasing  determination  on  the  part  of  the  Aboli 
tionists,  the  House  not  only  repeated  its  rule, 
but  made  it  more  stringent,  until,  at  last,  niaibe  of al  the 
irritated  beyond  measure  at  the  persistence  jj§|[fc  °^  p^ 
of  the  petitioners,  it  took  the  fatal  step,  and, 
on  January  8th,  1840,  enacted  as  a  stand- 
ing  rule  of  the  House  :  "  That  no  petition, 
memorial,  resolution,  or  other  paper,  praying  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  any  State 
or  Territory,  or  the  slave-trade  between  the  States  or 
Territories  of  the  United  States  in  which  it  now  exists, 
sliall  be  received  by  this  House,  or  entertained  in  any 
way  whatever." 

At  last  the  House  had  encroached  upon  the  most 
essential  part  of  the  right  of  petition,  the  right  to  have 
the  petition  heard.  The  moderate  men  of  the  South 
and  twenty-eight  members  from  the  North  had  given 
way  before  the  radical  men  of  the  South,  and  had  fallen 
into  the  ranks  under  their  lead.  The  Southern  radicals 
thought  that  they  had  won  a  great  victory,  but  it  was 
not  so.  They  had  only  identified  the  denial  of  the 
right  of  petition  with  the  interests  of  slavery.  They 


264  THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

had  only  demonstrated  that  slavery  was  a  matter  of  na 
tional  concern,  since  its  interests  required  that  limita 
tions  should  be  placed  upon  the  well  understood  rights 
of  the  people  in  the  non-slaveholding  Commonwealths. 
They  only  made  it  manifest  that,  sooner  or  later,  the 
nation  must  deal  with  the  question.  Their  most  violent 
enemies  could  not  have  wished  them  a  more  disastrous 
result. 

The  proceedings  in  the  Senate  in  regard  to  the  Aboli 
tion  petitions  must  be  even  more  concisely  stated.  The 
The  Aboii-  course  pursued  and  the  result  reached  were 
petitions  similar  to  what  has  been  described  in  the  ac- 
count  of  the  experiences  of  the  House.  The 
Senate  first  received  and  heard  the  petitions,  and  voted 
immediately  to  deny  their  prayer.  Then,  when  it  be 
came  evident  that  this  would  not  prevent  anti -slavery 
agitation  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  the  body  adopted 
the  custom  of  hearing  a  motion  not  to  receive  a  petition, 
and  voting  immediately  to  lay  the  motion  not  to  re 
ceive,  and  along  with  it  the  petition  itself,  on  the  table. 
This  practice  was  modified  a  little  later,  by  a  ruling  of 
the  presiding  officer,  to  the  effect  that  an  objection  to 
the  petition  by  any  member  would  raise  the  question  of 
the  reception  of  the  petition  without  a  formal  motion. 
Mr.  Calhoun  had  contended  for  this  method  of  raising 
the  question  in  regard  to  the  reception  of  the  petitions 
from  the  beginning  of  the  struggle  over  the  subject,  in 
January  of  1836.  He  seemed,  however,  to  desire  to  dis 
pose  of  them  by  simply  voting  not  to  receive  them.  In 
fact,  he  made  a  motion  to  this  effect,  at  the  very  outset 
of  the  contest,  but  without  success.  While  thus  the  Sen 
ate  did  not  formally  adopt  the  practice  finally  reached  in 
the  House,  of  refusing  to  receive  the  petitions,  it  arrived 
at  about  the  same  result  in  practice.  It  is  true  that  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  allowed  the  petitions  to  be 


ABOLITION  265 

read  before  putting  the  motion  upon  their  reception, 
which  seems  to  have  been  an  illogical  practice  indeed, 
and  that  any  member  might  move  to  call  up  the  motion 
not  to  receive,  and  with  it  the  petition  or  petitions  to 
which  that  motion  referred  ;  but  the  reading  before  the 
motion  not  to  receive,  or  before  the  objection  to  receiv 
ing,  was  perfunctory,  and  there  was  no  member  of  the 
Senate  who  desired  to  call  up  the  tabled  petitions  or 
persisted  in  so  doing.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  public 
opinion  which  the  Abolitionists  succeeded  in  creating 
in  the  North  concerning  the  attitude  of  the  Senate  to 
ward  the  Abolition  petitions  was  that  the  Senate  had 
done  the  same  violence  to  the  people's  constitutional 
right  of  petition  that  the  House  had  done.  It  was  held 
and  believed  throughout  the  North,  in  1840,  that  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  both  of  its  branches, 
had  set  the  interests  of  slavery  above  the  liberties  of  the 
people  of  the  North. 

There  were  two  incidents  which  happened  during  the 
course  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Senate  upon  the  subject 
to  which  brief  reference  should  be  made.  One  was  the 
noted  passage  of  words  between  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Mr. 
Rives,  of  Virginia,  in  regard  to  the  morality  of  slavery, 
and  the  other  was  the  petition  from  the  legislature  of 
Vermont  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

The  Abolitionists  had  assumed  to  have  the  ethical 
principle  entirely  upon  their  side,  and  this  had  not,  down 
to  1836,  been  clearly  disputed  by  the  slave-  Mr.  Rives 
holders.  The  slaveholders  had,  themselves, 
as  we  have  so  often  seen,  acknowledged  slav- 
ery  to  be  an  evil,  and  had,  therefore,  de-  slavery, 
fended  it  chiefly  from  the  point  of  view  of  positive  law. 
Of  course  so  profound  a  thinker  as  Mr.  Calhoun  knew 
that  positive  law  cannot  permanently  withstand  the  as- 


266  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

saults  of  ethical  principle.  He  knew  that  the  moral 
arguments  against  slavery  must  be  met  upon  moral 
grounds,  as  well  as  upon  legal  grounds.  The  discussion 
was  carried  over  upon  ethical  premises  by  the  remark  of 
Mr.  Rives  that  he,  though  a  slaveholder,  was  not  in 
favor  of  slavery  in  the  abstract,  and  differed  on  that 
point  with  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  Mr. 
Calhoun  immediately  denied  that  he  had  expressed  any 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  ab 
stract,  and  said  he  had  spoken  of  slavery  only  "as  ex 
isting  where  two  races  of  men,  of  different  color,  and 
striking  dissimilarity  in  conformation,  habits,  and  a 
thousand  other  particulars,  were  placed  in  immediate 
juxtaposition."  Mr.  Calhoun  elaborated  his  argument 
in  many  directions,  but  the  gist  of  it  was  that  where  a 
civilized  race  and  a  barbarous  race,  nearly  equal  numeri 
cally,  must  live  together,  the  civilized  race  must,  in  the 
interests  of  the  civilization  of  both  races,  control  the 
barbarous  race,  through  the  relation  of  the  slavery  of 
the  latter  to  the  former,  and  that  the  only  alternative 
to  this  would  be  the  barbarizing  of  the  whole  society  by 
the  uncontrolled  deeds  and  passions  of  the  barbarous 
race,  if  the  two  races  are  left  to  themselves,  or  the  es 
tablishment  of  a  barbaric  despotism  over  the  civilized 
race,  if  the  barbaric  race  be  aided  by  successful  inter 
ference  from  without.  In  contrast  with  either  of  these 
conditions,  Mr.  Calhoun  contended  that  the  slavery 
of  the  barbarous  race  to  the  civilized  race  was  a  moral 
good. 

From  a  metaphysical  point  of  view  the  only  question 
between  Mr.  Rives  and  Mr.  Calhoun  was  whether  every 
departure  from  the  perfect  good  must  be  considered  an 
evil,  or  whether  a  nearer  approximation  to  the  perfect 
good  may  be  called  a  good  in  contrast  with  a  lower  •ap 
proximation.  Mr.  Rives  was  looking  at  the  subject 


ABOLITION  267 

from  an  abstract,  transcendental  point  of  view,  while 
Mr.  Calhonn  was  regarding  it  from  the  historical  point 
of  view.  Mr.  Rives  was  with  the  Abolitionists  upon  the 
abstract  principle,  but  against  them  as  to  the  time  and 
means  of  applying  it.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  not  against  the 
Abolitionists  upon  the  abstract  principle,  but  the  time 
of  its  possible  application  appeared  to  him  so  far  distant, 
and  the  impropriety  and  unfairness  of  interference  by 
outsiders  in  the  matter  and  the  disastrous  consequences 
which  must  flow  from  such  interference  seemed  to  him 
so  plain  and  so  certain,  that  he  almost  lost  sight  of  the 
abstract  height  upon  which  the  Abolitionists  stood  be 
hind  the  many  intervening  elevations,  which  must  be 
first  attained  and  traversed  in  order  to  reach  their  posi 
tion. 

There  was  a  possible  moral  ground  upon  which  Mr. 
Calhoun  and  the  Abolitionists  might  have  met.  Could 
the  Abolitionists  have  conceived  that  the  ex- 

,.    .  The     moral 

istence  01  certain  conditions  would   nustifv  ground  upon 

^  ,.        !  ,     ..  i  .    T  ,  ,     which    Cal- 

domestic.  slavery  as  a  relation  which  could  houn  and  the 
temporarily  produce  a  better  state  of  morals  cmSd^^haVe 
in  a  particularly  constituted  society  than  any  r 
other  relation,  that  is,  could  they  have  taken  the  his 
torical  view  of  ethics,  the  evolutionary  view  of  morals, 
and  could  Mr.  Calhoun  have  seen  that  the  time  had 
come  for  a  modification  of  the  existing  form  of  negro 
slavery  in  the  South,  for  a  step  toward  a  greater  degree 
of  personal  liberty  for  the  slave,  an  approach  between 
him  and  them  might  have  been,  at  least,  begun  ;  but 
their  implacable  dogmatism,  and  his  stern  resentment 
at  their  persistent  interference  in  what  he  thought  no 
concern  of  theirs,  widened  the  gulf  between  him  and 
them  from  day  to  day.  They  regarded  him  as  a  sin 
ner  and  a  criminal  because  he  held  persons  to  service 
and  labor  who  had  not  freely  agreed  to  the  same,  and  he 


268  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

considered  them  to  be  greater  sinners  and  criminals  be 
cause  they  would  overturn  the  existing  order  of  society 
in  communities  where  they  had  no  personal  interests  to 
be  affected,  and  would  introduce  into  these  communities 
the  reign  of  plunder,  rapine,  and  murder. 

When  Mr.  Calhoun  saw  that  he  could  not  bring  the 
Senate  to  refuse  formally  to  receive  the  Abolition  peti- 
Mr.  cai-  tions,  he  undertook  to  bring  the  Senate  over 
to  his  views  of   the    "States'   sovereignty" 
character  of  the  Union,  of  the  obligation  of 
slavery.  the  general  Government  to  protect  slavery  in 

the  slaveholding  Commonwealths,  of  the  ethical  obli 
gation  of  the  people  of  the  non-slaveholding  Common 
wealths  not  to  attack  the  institution  of  slavery,  and  of 
the  practical  impotence  of  Congress  to  deal  with  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  in  the  Territories.  He 
did  not,  however,  succeed.  The  Senate  did  not  repu 
diate  his  "States'  sovereignty"  view  of  the  Union,  but, 
while  it  was  willing  to  say  that  neither  the  Northern 
Commonwealths  nor  the  Northern  people  had  any  legal 
right  to  attack  slavery  under  moral  or  religious  pre 
texts,  it  would  not  say  that  they  were  under  moral  or 
religious  obligations  to  abstain  from  the  attack.  Neither 
would  the  Senate  say  that  the  general  Government  must 
so  exercise  its  powers  as  to  give  increased  security  to 
slavery,  nor  that  the  general  Government  had  no  power 
over  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  District  and  the  Ter 
ritories.  It  modified  these  demands  of  Mr.  Calhoun  so 
as  to  make  them  read,  that  the  general  Government 
should  not  so  exercise  its  powers  as  to  interfere  with 
the  security  of  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  Com 
monwealths,  and  that  the  general  Government  ought 
not  in  good  faith  to  undertake  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
District  or  in  the  Territories,  except  under  certain  con 
ditions. 


ABOLITION  269 

The  immediate  occasion  of  the  presentation  of  these 
resolutions  of  December  27th,  1837,  by  Mr.  Calhoun, 
was  probably  the  other  incident  to  which  The  anti_ 
reference  has  been  made,  the  introduction,  slavery  peti- 

.    .  tion  irom  the 

by  Senator  Swift,  of  Vermont,  oi  a  petrtion  Vermont  leg- 
from  the  legislature  of  Vermont  praying  for 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
This  shaft  had  struck  Mr.  Calhoun  in  his  most  vulner 
able  part.  Here  was,  according  to  his  own  doctrine,  a 
"sovereign  State "  instructing  its  governmental  agent 
for  general  affairs.  Could  that  agent  refuse  to  re 
ceive  the  instructions  of  one  of  his  principals  ?  There 
certainly  was  no  precedent  for  any  such  procedure  as 
that  in  any  system  of  jurisprudence  known  to  the  world. 
Mr.  Calhoun  recognized  fully  the  embarrassment  of  his 
position.  He  begged  that  the  communication  from  the 
Vermont  legislature  might  lay  upon  the  table  until  he 
could  prepare  his  mind  for  action  upon  the  subject,  and 
pledged  himself  to  call  it  up  very  shortly,  if  no  one  else 
should  do  so.  Mr.  Swift  helped  the  Senate,  and  Mr. 
Calhoun  especially,  out  of  the  dilemma  by  withdrawing 
the  petition  for  the  time  being.  This  incident  occurred 
on  December  19th. 

Mr.  Swift  assumed  that  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions  of 
the  27th  contained  the  results  of  his  preparation  of 
mind  to  meet  the  Vermont  memorial,  and  after  the 
consideration  of  them  by  the  Senate,  Mr.  Swift  rein- 
troduced  the  memorial  on  January  16th  (1838).  The 
Southerners  had  been  thrown  into  such  confusion  by  the 
coup  de  surprise  sprung  upon  them  by  the  Vermonters 
that  they  had  not  been  able  to  agree  upon  any  plan  for 
meeting  the  exigency.  Some  of  them  denounced  the 
action  of  the  Vermont  legislature  as  incendiary,  out 
rageous,  and  degrading.  Mr.  King  gave  his  "  States' 
sovereignty "  creed  entirely  away  in  saying:  "  We  de- 


270  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

fend  the  legitimate  rights  of  the  States,  but  we  do  not 
defend  a  sovereign  State  when  she  asserts  calumny  and 
falsehood." 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  measured  in  his  language,,  but  evi 
dently  greatly  disturbed  in  mind.  He  said  that  as  a 
"States'  rights"  man,  in  the  strongest  sense,  he  believed 
that  the  "  State  "  of  Vermont  had  a  right  to  come  there 
and  be  heard  ;  that,  on  the  best  reflection  he  could  give 
to  the  matter,  he  could  not  vote  against  receiving  the 
petition  ;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  he  considered  the 
language  of  the  memorial  so  objectionable  that  he  could 
not  vote  to  receive  it. 

It  does  seem  as  if  this  incident  should  have  taught 
Mr.  Calhoun  the  fallacy  of  his  logic  in  insisting  upon 
the  power  of  the  Senate  to  refuse  to  receive  a  petition. 
Here  was  a  case  in  which  his  doctrine  of  parliamentary 
procedure  had  absolutely  broken  down,  according  to 
his  own  acknowledgment.  Mr.  Strange,  of  Korth 
Carolina,  committed  the  folly  of  objecting  to  the  recep 
tion  of  the  petition,  and  moving  that  the  question  of 
reception,  and  with  it  the  petition,  be  laid  on  the  table. 
The  motion  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-six  to 
twelve.  The  memorial  was  received  and  the  debate 
upon  it  was  in  order.  The  Southerners  were  helpless, 
and  had  not  Mr.  Swift  himself  come  to  their  rescue,  no 
man  can  say  what  would  have  happened.  Mr.  Swift 
moved  that  the  papers  from  the  Vermont  legislature 
be  laid  upon  the  table,  without  being  printed.  They 
had  accomplished  their  immediate  purpose,  and  it  was 
wise  as  well  as  patriotic  to  let  them  rest  in  dignity  and 
honor. 

The  Abolitionists  were  more  successful  in  their  at 
tempt  to  use  the  United  States  mails  for  the  distribu 
tion  of  their  literature  throughout  the  South.  During 
the  course  of  the  year  1835,  it  became  known  that 


ABOLITION  271 

their  opinions  and  doctrines  were  being  disseminated  by 
this  means.  The  Southerners  considered  these  opinions 
to  be  incendiary  and  dangerous  to  the  peace 
and  safety  of  their  communities  and  their  fire-  tion  a o c u- 
sides.  They  thought  that  they  had  the  legal  unfted^tates 
right  to  prevent  the  delivery  of  such  mail  r 
matter  in  their  respective  communities.  They  did  not 
wait,  however,  to  deal  with  the  subject  through  legal 
forms.  On  the  night  of  July  29th,  1835,  a  mob  of  re 
spectables  broke  into  the  post-office  at  Charleston,  S.  C., 
in  search  of  Abolition  documents.  They  found  a  sack 
full  of  them,  took  it  away  with  them,  and  publicly 
burned  its  contents.  On  August  4th  following,  a  meet 
ing  of  the  citizens  took  place,  at  which  a  committee  of 
public  safety  was  elected,  which  should,  in  understand 
ing  with  the  postmaster,  determine  what  mail  matter 
should  not  be  delivered  by  him  to  the  addressees.  The 
postmaster  apparently  acquiesced  in  this  arrangement, 
but  he  wrote,  upon  his  own  responsibility,  a  letter  to 
the  postmaster  of  New  York  City,  whence  the  Aboli 
tion  pamphlets  had  come,  requesting  him  not  to  forward 
any  more  such  documents.  The  postmaster  at  New 
York  endeavored  to  induce  the  Abolitionists  not  to  put 
any  more  of  their  literature  into  the  mails  until  he 
could  receive  instructions  from  the  Postmaster-General 
at  Washington  in  regard  to  the  question ;  and  when  the 
Abolitionists  repelled  his  request,  he  refused  to  forward 
their  documents,  pending  his  conference  with  the  Post 
master-General. 

The  Postmaster-General,  Mr.  Amos  Kendall,  one  of 
the  shrewdest  of  politicians,  though  no  great  constitu 
tional  lawyer,  answered  the  appeal  from  the  postmaster 
at  New  York  immediately.  He  instructed  his  subordi 
nate  that  the  executive  power  of  the  Government  had 
no  legal  authority  to  exclude  mail  matter,  as  defined  by 


272  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

Congress,  from  the  mails  on  account  of  the  character 
of  its  contents,  real  or  supposed.  If  Mr.  Kendall  had 
The  Post-  stopped  with  this  he  would  have  been  entirely 
master-Gener-  correct  ;  but  he  went  on  to  say  that  he  would 
regard  to  the  not  direct  the  postmaster  at  New  York  to  for- 

Abolition  doc-  ,.,         A  T    "-I  • ,  •  T  ,  i 

umentsin  the  ward  the  Abolition  documents  or  the  post 
master  at  Charleston  to  deliver  them,  com 
mended  their  assumption  of  the  responsibility  of  with 
holding  them  from  the  addressees,  and  declared  that  the 
United  States  officials  owed  an  obligation  to  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  but  a  higher  one  to  the  communities 
in  which  they  lived.  Mr.  Kendall  probably  meant  this 
part  of  his  communication  as  the  advice  of  one  private 
citizen  to  another.  Looked  at  in  the  most  charitable 
light  possible,  however,  it  was  unjustifiable  and  perni 
cious.  It  was  nothing  less  than  an  encouragement  to 
his  subordinates  to  suspend  the  execution  of  the  laws 
which  they  were  appointed  to  execute  and  sworn  to  exe 
cute,  when  in  their  several  opinions  the  welfare  of  the 
communities  in  which  they  might  live  should  require  it. 
This  was  nullification,  not  by  a  "  State  "  convention, 
but  by  an  individual  United  States  officer.  How  the 
President,  who  had  always  so  sternly  denounced  any  at 
tempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  laws,  could  ap 
prove  this  is  difficult  to  understand.  His  indignation 
at  the  Abolitionists  in  persisting  in  what  he  considered 
an  abuse  of  the  freedom  of  the  mails  probably  blinded 
him  to  the  real  significance  of  the  matter. 

In  his  message  of  the  following  December,  the  Presi 
dent  denounced  the  methods  of  the  Abolitionists  in 
Jackson  on  sending  their  incendiary  literature  into  the 
Sliiseebyf  the  South  as  calculated  and  intended  to  excite  a 
Abolitionists.  serviie  war  with  all  its  horrors,  and  recom 
mended  Congress  to  pass  a  law  prohibiting,  "under  se 
vere  penalties,  the  circulation  in  the  Southern  States, 


ABOLITION  273 

through  the  mail,  of   incendiary  publications  intended 
to  instigate  the  slaves  to  insurrection/' 

Mr.  Calhoun  himself  moved  the  reference  of  this 
part  of  the  President's  message  to  a  select  committee 
in  the  Senate.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  appointed  the  chair 
man  of  the  committee,  and  on  February  4th,  1836,  he 
brought  in  a  report  and  a  bill. 

In  the  report  Mr.  Calhoun  took  the  ground  that  the 
freedom  of  the  mails  was  a  necessary  part  of  the  free 
dom  of  the  press,  and  argued  that,  as  Con-  Mr.  cai- 
gress  was  prohibited  by  the  first  amendment  aSd  bm  Sfthe 
to  the  Constitution  from  passing  any  law  8UbJect 
abridging  the  freedom  of  the  press,  so  Congress  pos 
sessed  no  power  to  pass  any  law  excluding  mail  matter 
from  the  mails  on  account  of  the  character  of  its  con 
tents  or  authorizing  such  matter  to  be  withheld  from 
the  addressees.  Mr.  Calhoun's  conclusion  was  that  only 
the  "  States "  could  make  such  laws  as  would  effect 
these  things.  He  proposed  in  his  bill,  therefore,  that 
no  deputy  postmaster  in  any  "  State,"  Territory,- or  dis 
trict  of  the  Union  should  knowingly  receive  and  put 
into  the  mail  any  printed  or  written  paper  or  pictorial 
representation  touching  the  subject  of  slavery,  addressed 
to  a  person  or  a  post-office  within  any  "  State/'  Terri 
tory,  or  district  in  which  the  circulation  of  such  papers 
and  representations  was  forbidden  by  the  local  laws ; 
that  the  officers  and  agents  of  the  Post-Office  Depart 
ment  should  co-operate  with  the  local  officials  in  pre 
venting  the  circulation  of  such  papers  and  representa 
tions  where  their  circulation  was  prohibited  by  the  local 
laws  ;  that  the  matter  so  detained  from  transmission  by 
a  post-office  official  should  be  burned,  after  one  month's 
notice,  if  the  person  depositing  the  same  should  not 
claim  it  within  that  period  ;  and  that  the  post-office 
officials  who  should  violate  these  duties  should  not  be 
18 


274  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

protected  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States  against  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  local  law  and  government. 

Mr.   Clay  immediately  pointed  out  the  fatal   weak 
nesses  of  this  proposition.     He  argued  that  it  attributed 

clay's  criti-  to  Congress  either  the  power  to  adopt  the 
hoTn'8°proCpao:  laws  of  the  "States"  upon  subjects  in  re- 
sition.  gar(j  to  whicn  Congress  itself  had  not  the 

power  to  legislate,  or  the  power  to  pass  laws  in  execution 
of  laws  which  it  had  no  power  to  make.  The  argument 
was  unanswerable,  and  the  conclusion  was  unavoidable 
that  if  Congress  could  not  itself  pass  a  law  excluding 
the  Abolition  papers  and  documents  from  the  mail,  or 
forbidding  their  delivery  to  the  addressees,  it  could  not 
enact  Mr.  Calhoun's  proposition.  After  four  months 
of  deliberation  the  Senate  rejected  the  proposed  bill  by 
a  vote  of  twenty-five  to  nineteen.  Mr.  Calhoun  thus 
lost  the  aid  of  the  general  Government  in  his  contest 
with  the  Abolitionists  over  the  use  of  the  mails  chiefly 
through  his  exaggerated  "  States'  rights  "  doctrine. 

Encouraged  by  this  victory,  the  friends  of  free  mails 
succeeded  in  having  a  provision  incorporated  into  the 

The  act  of  Act  of  July  2nd,  1836,  for  changing  the  or- 
te°?tienssptrhe  ganization  of  the  Post-Office  Department, 
ument8°?ndthe  which  ordains  that  any  postmaster  inten- 
maiis.  tionally  detaining  any  mail  matter  from  the 

addressees  shall  be  fined  and  imprisoned,  and  incapaci 
tated  to  hold  thereafter  the  office  of  a  postmaster  in  the 
United  States. 

It  would  not  be  extravagant  to  say  that  the  whole 
course  of  the  internal  history  of  the  United 

General    re-  J 

suits  of  the  States  from  1836  to  1861  was  more  largely 

struggle    over  . 

the  right  of  determined  by  the  struggle  in  Congress  over 

petition    and,!          .  ,     7 . , .      '  ....  -in  *    n 

thefreedomof  the  Abolition  petitions  and  the  use  of  the 
mails  for  the  distribution  of  the  Abolition 
literature  than  by  anything  else. 


ABOLITION  275 

In  the  first  place,  it  did  more  than  anything  else  to 
make  a  political  party  out  of  the  Abolitionists,  through 
the  conviction  which  it  produced  throughout  the  North 
that  the  demands  of  the  slavery  system  in  the  South 
would  ultimately  destroy  civil  and  political  liberty  in 
the  North,  and  it  increased  the  strength  of  the  Aboli 
tionists  an  hundredfold  in  less  than  four  years.  The 
development  and  ultimate  triumph  of  this  party  in  the 
North  became  inevitable  from  the  moment  that  it  was 
clearly  recognized  that  the  preservation  of  slavery  at 
the  South  required  and  demanded  the  denial  of  the 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  and  of  the  right  of 
petition,  to  the  people  of  the  North. 

In  the  second  place,  it  taught  the  South  that  there 
was  a  growing  party  in  the  North  which  was  determined 
to  attack  slavery  at  every  possible  legal  point,  and  prose 
cute  its  warfare  at  every  hazard,  and  that  the  only 
safety  for  the  South,  with  its  slavery  system,  in  the 
Union,  was  to  hold  at  least  equal  power  in  the  Congress 
with  the  representation  from  the  North.  In  self-de 
fence  the  South  must  secure,  therefore,  the  formation 
of  new  slaveholding  Commonwealths.  At  the  moment 
the  representation  in  the  Senate  was  evenly  balanced, 
but  in  the  House  it  stood  against  the  South,  one  hun 
dred  and  forty-one  to  ninety-nine.  One  more  non- 
slaveholding  Commonwealth,  without  an  offset  on  the 
other  side,  would  destroy  the  balance  in  the  Senate  and 
enable  the  North  to  undertake  legislation  hostile  to 
slavery.  The  extension  of  slavery  to  new  Common 
wealths  was  thus  manifestly  a  necessity  to  its  perma 
nent  security,  and  even  continuance,  in  the  Common 
wealths  where  it  already  existed.  The  policy  of  the 
slaveholders  must  be  to  allow  no  new  non- slaveholding 
Commonwealth  to  be  formed  without  another  slave- 
holding  Commonwealth  to  match  it,  and  to  secure  the 


276  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

extension  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  toward 
the  South. 

In  the  third  place,  it  aroused  the  apprehension  of 
slave  insurrection,  by  Abolition  incitement,  throughout 
the  South,  and  caused  thereby  two  marked  movements 
in  the  South,  the  one  legal  and  the  other  social.  The 
first  was  the  legislation  sharpening  and  increasing  the 
police  power  of  the  public  authorities  over  the  slaves, 
for  t^ie  purpose  of  preventing  the  access  of  the  Abolition 
doctrines  to  their  minds,  and  of  preventing  communica 
tion  and  intercourse  between  strangers  and  slaves,  and 
between  the  slaves  themselves.  The  control  of  the  slave 
by  the  master  was  thus  more  and  more  interfered  with 
by  the  public  authorities,  for  the  purpose  indeed  of  aid 
ing  the  master,  which,  however,  did  not  alter  the  fact  that 
from  being  primarily  for  the  most  part  a  household  af 
fair,  slavery  was  becoming  more  and  more  an  affair  of 
the  community.  This  meant  no  improvement  to  the 
condition  of  the  slave  ;  quite  the  contrary.  The  inter 
vention  of  the  whites  in  the  South  who  owned  no  slaves 
in  the  control  of  the  slaves  marks  an  increase  of  rigor  in 
the  treatment  of  the  slaves.  In  fact  much  of  the  cruelty 
inflicted  upon  the  slaves  during  the  twenty  years  be 
tween  1840  and  1860  was  executed  by  non-slaveholders, 
by  virtue  of  the  increased  control  assumed  by  the  public 
authorities  over  the  relation  between  master  and  slave, 
through  the  local  legislation  of  that  period.  The  other 
movement  was  toward  the  development  of  a  military 
caste  in  the  society.  The  slaveholders,  and  especially 
the  sons  of  the  slaveholders,  now  began  to  understand 
that  they  must  unite  in  military  organization  and  make 
themselves  the  exclusive  military  class.  The  spirit  of 
chivalry  and  the  practices  of  knighthood  were  largely  de 
veloped  during  this  period,  with  both  their  good  and 
their  bad  consequences.  On  the  one  side  they  produced 


ABOLITION  277 

a  high-toned  society  of  proud,  noble  women,  and  courtly, 
haughty  men,  among  the  slaveholders.  On  the  other, 
they  degraded  all  other  classes,  both  white  and  black. 
In  fact  they  degraded  the  poor  whites  more  than  they 
did  the  blacks.  The  blacks  felt,  and  were  proud  of,  the 
increased  importance  of  their  masters.  And,  naturally, 
this  spirit  and  life  among  the  slaveholding  class  made 
the  generation  which  grew  up  under  them  eager  for  ad 
venture  and  war,  intensely  tenacious  of  rights,  sensitive 
to  every  only  apparent  discourtesy,  and  resentful  of 
every  semblance  of  interference  from  without.  The 
War  with  Mexico,  the  filibustering  expeditions,  and  the 
Civil  War  itself,  were  all  national  consequences  of  the 
social  development  in  the  South  after  1836. 


CHAPTEK  XII. 

THE  BANK,  THE  SUB-TREASURY,  AND  PARTY  DEVELOP 
MENT  BETWEEN  1832  AND  1842 

Jackson  and  the  Bank  after  the  Election  of  1832— The  Power  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  over  the  Government  Deposits — 
Removal  of  McLane  and  Duane — Taney's  Report  to  Congress 
of  December  3rd,  1835— Abuses  of  Power  by  Jackson  and 
Taney — The  Senate's  Censure  of  the  President  and  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury— National  Republicans  Take  the  Name  of 
Whigs— The  Cardinal  Doctrine  of  the  Whigs— The  Change  of 
the  Deposits  and  the  Specie  Order  of  1836 — Van  Buren's  Elec 
tion  and  the  Panic  of  '"37"— The  Sub-Treasury  Idea— The 
Establishment  of  the  Sub-Treasury  System— The  Election  of 
1840— Whig  Legislative  Projects  in  Regard  to  the  Bank  and 
the  Tariff— The  Party  Treason  of  Tyler  and  the  Whig  War 
upon  the  President's  Veto  Power — The  Whigs  Unable  to  En 
counter  the  Questions  of  Territorial  Extension  and  Slavery 
Extension. 

WHEN  the  violent  agitation  of  the  slavery  question, 
in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  decade,  came  so  suddenly 
upon  the  nation,  it  found  the  great  political  parties,  di 
vided  upon  issues  which  partook  more  of  the  character 
of  economic  policies  than  that  of  rights,  or  of  govern 
mental  forms  and  powers.  It  is  true  that  the  protective 
tariff,  the  Bank,  and  internal  improvements  had  been 
denounced  by  some  persons  as  unconstitutional,  but 
neither  party  held  this  view  of  these  subjects  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  decade  of  the  century.  They 
were  regarded  by  the  two  great  parties  from  the  point 


THE   BANK    AND   THE   SUB-TREASURY          279 

of  view  of  economic  policy,  and  were  supported  or  op 
posed  by  them  on  the  ground  of  conduciveness  or  lack 
of  conduciveness  to  the  public  welfare.  More  exactly, 
the  Bank  was  the  chief  political  issue  between  1832  and 
1840.  It  was  in  the  conflict  between  Congress  and  the 
President  in  regard  to  the  Bank  that  the  national  Re 
publicans  took  the  title  of  Whigs,  anti-prerogative  men. 

After  the  election  of  1832  upon  the  Bank  issue,  Presi 
dent  Jackson,  naturally  for  him,  regarded  himself  as  the 
only  representative  of  the  present  will  of  the  jackeonaud 
people  in  the  Government.  The  Congress,  [jje  SecSonS 
at  the  time  of  the  election,  was,  as  we  know,  1832- 
favorable  to  the  Bank.  The  newly  elected  members  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  would  not  assemble  for  a 
year  probably,  and  the  Senate  would  probably  sustain 
the  Bank  after  that.  The  President,  therefore,  resolved 
to  do  by  edict  what  Congress  would  not  do  by  statute — 
destroy  the  Bank. 

The  sixteenth  section  of  the  Bank  Act  provided  that 
the  funds  of  the  United  States  should  be  deposited  in 
the  Bank  or  its  branches,  unless  the  Secre-  The  power 
tary  of  the  Treasury  should  at  any  time  other- 
wise  order  and  direct.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  was  thus  impliedly  authorized  by  mentdeposits. 
Congress  to  cease  depositing  these  funds  in  the  Bank 
or  its  branches  at  his  own  discretion,  and  was  made  di 
rectly  responsible  to  Congress  in  the  exercise  of  this 
authority,  by  the  provision  that  he  must  report,  so  soon 
as  possible,  to  Congress  his  reasons  for  making  use  of 
the  power.  The  President  thus  had  no  direct  authority 
in  the  matter.  He  could  exercise  only  an  indirect  con 
trol  through  his  power  over  the  tenure  of  the  Secretary. 
At  this  period  in  the  history  of  the  tenure  of  office  in 
the  United  States,  the  power  of  removal  was  regarded  as 
a  prerogative  of  the  President  alone. 


280  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

President  Jackson  was  within  the  letter  of  his  '  pre 
rogative  when,  in  the  spring  of  1833,  he  removed  Mr. 
McLane,  and   later,  Mr.   Duane,  from   the 
secretaryship  of  the  Treasury.     That  he  did 


this  because  of  their  refusal  to  be  controlled 
by  him  in  regard  to  the  deposit  of  the  funds  of  the 
United  States  in  the  Bank  and  its  branches  was,  legally, 
no  concern  of  anybody  else. 

The  new  Secretary,  Mr.  Taney,  appointed  to  succeed 

Mr.  Duane,  was  also  acting  within  the  letter  of  his  au- 

Taney'e  re-  *nor^y   when    he   ceased   to    make   deposit 

P°ess  %  CSe~  °^  ^e  Government  funds  in  the  Bank  and 

cember  3rd,   its  branches,  and  reported  his  action  to  Con 

gress  at  the  commencement  of   the  session 

following  the  recess  of  Congress  during  which  he  made 

this  change. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  very  questionable  whether 
the  President  was  not  abusing  his  power  of  dismissal 
Abuses  of  from  office,  in  spirit,  by  requiring  the  obe- 
Sa°ckson  an5  ^Q^Ge  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
Taney.  himself  in  regard  to  a  subject  concerning 

which  Congress  had  vested  discretionary  power  in  the 
Secretary,  and  in  the  use  of  which  power  Congress  had 
made  the  Secretary  directly  and  exclusively  responsible 
to  itself.  And  it  was  likewise  very  questionable  whether 
the  Secretary  was  not  abusing  his  authority,  in  spirit, 
in  ceasing,  during  a  recess  of  Congress,  to  deposit  the 
funds  of  the  United  States  in  the  Bank  and  its  branches, 
when,  less  than  a  year  before  this,  Congress  had  made  a 
full  investigation  of  the  condition  of  the  Bank  and  had 
disapproved,  by  large  majorities  in  both  Houses,  of  the 
President's  recommendation  that  the  deposits  be  made 
elsewhere  than  in  the  Bank  and  its  branches. 

Secretary  Taney,  afterward  Chief  Justice,  to  whose 
legal  opinions,  therefore,  great  respect  must  be  paid, 


THE   BANK    AND   THE   SUB-TREASURY          281 

contended  that  Congress  itself  could  not  have  caused 
the  removal  of  the  deposits  without  violating  the  con 
tract  with  the  Bank,  as  expressed  in  the  Bank's  char 
ter,,  and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  alone  was 
exempted  from  this  obligation  by  the  provisions  of  the 
contract.  The  Secretary  alone,  he  said,  could,  therefore, 
act  for  the  welfare  of  the  people  in  the  matter,  and  by 
the  oath  which  he  had  sworn  upon  the  Constitution  he 
must  so  act.  He  declared  it  to  be  his  conviction  that 
the  public  welfare  would  suffer  by  his  continuing  to  de 
posit  the  funds  of  the  Government  in  the  Bank  and  its 
branches,  and  that  he  felt,  therefore,  in  duty  bound  to 
make  the  order  discontinuing  the  same. 

The  Senate,  however,  took  a  different  view  of  the  sub 
ject.  It  considered  the  act  of  the  Secretary  to  have  been 
done  under  the  order  of  the  President,  and  The 
in  condemnatory  resolutions  held  the  Presi-  censure  of  the 
dent  responsible  therefor.  These  resolutions  &££$!$  a?f 
of  censure  connected  the  Secretary  with  the  c 
President,  however,  by  declaring  the  reasons  offered  by 
t!ie  Secretary  for  the  change  in  regard  to  the  deposits 
to  be  "unsatisfactory  and  insufficient."  The  President 
made  a  vigorous  protest  against  the  Senate's  resolution 
charging  him  with  usurpation,  and  flung  the  accusation 
back  at  the  body.  He  certainly  showed  that  the  Senate 
had  no  constitutional  power  to  make  any  such  charge 
against  the  President  ;  and  Senator  Benton  immediately 
gave  notice  that  he  should  move  the  expunging  of  the 
resolutions  from  the  journal  at  every  session  of  Congress 
until  it  should  be  accomplished. 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  conflict,  and  in  conse 
quence  of  it,  a  conflict  in  principle  between  National  Ke- 
the  legislative  and  executive  departments  tph 
of  the  Government,  in  regard  to  the  ex-  Whis8- 
tent  of  their  respective  powers,  that  Mr.  James  Watson 


282  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

Webb,  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Courier  and  En 
quirer,  began,  about  February,  1834,  to  denominate, 
in  his  newspaper  articles,  the  opposition  party  to  the 
President,  led  by  Mr.  Clay,  Whigs.  This  title  signi 
fied  opposition  to  high  executive  prerogative,  and  ap 
proval  of  strong  Congressional  control  over  the  Presi 
dent.  The  name  was  gradually  substituted  for  that  of 
National  Eepublicans,  as  the  different  members  and  fac 
tions  of  the  party  came  together  upon  the  principle  in 
volved  in  the  name. 

It  seemed,  for  the  moment,  as  if  the  parties  had  re 
turned  to  the  condition  of  bands  of  retainers  under  the 

The  cardinal  lea(^  °^  *^ay  an<^  Jac^son  respectively,  but 
doctrine  of  the  this  was  more  apparent  than  real.      There 

Whigs.  -I          j  v         •  j.- 

was  a  real  and  comprehensive  question  at 
issue,  one  of  the  most  fundamental  questions  of  political 
science,  the  question  of  parliamentary  government  or 
presidential  government  in  the  United  States.  The 
triumph  of  President  Jackson  in  this  conflict — for  the 
Bank  was  not  rechartered,  the  deposits  were  not  re 
stored,  and  the  President  was  not  impeached,  but  the 
Senate's  resolutions  of  censure  were  expunged — settled 
that  question,  and  preserved  the  American  system  of 
government  from  further  following  the  tendency  which, 
from  the  accession  of  Jefferson  to  that  of  Jackson,  had 
been  slowly  asserting  itself,  the  tendency  toward  Con 
gressional  control  over  the  Administration. 

The  original  character  of  the  Whig  party  explains 
many  important  things  in  its  composition  and  subse 
quent  history.  In  the  first  place,  it  explains  why  the 
party  was  composed,  as  to  its  leading  element,  of  high- 
toned,  courteous  gentlemen — the  larger  part  of  aristoc 
racy  of  the  land — since  it  is  the  instinct  of  the  aristoc 
racy  to  control  the  executive  through  the  legislature. 
It  explains  further  why  the  Whig  party  was  unable  to 


THE   BANK    AND   THE   SUB-TKEASURY         283 

cope  with  the  problem  of  slavery,  since  its  fundamental 
principle  was  not  a  doctrine  of  rights,  but  of  govern 
mental  form.  It  explains,  lastly,  why,  in  the  develop 
ment  of  the  country's  history,  the  defeat  of  the  Whig 
party  was  necessary  to  the  very  existence  of  the  country, 
when  the  great  struggle  should  come,  since  its  principle 
of  Congressional  control  of  the  Administration  would, 
if  realized,  have  greatly  weakened  that  executive  inde 
pendence,  power,  and  unity,  without  which  victory 
could  hardly  have  been  won. 

The  failure  of  the  Whigs  in  the  campaign  of  1836, 
and  their  momentary  triumph  in  that  of  1840,  were  ex 
perienced  under  the  true  issue  of  the  Whig  The  change 
principle.  The  modification  of  the  tariff  by  9f  the  deP°us- 

J     its,     and     the 

the  Act  of  1833,  and  the  change  of  the  place  specie  order 
of  deposit  of  the  funds  of  the  Government, 
after  October  1st,  1833,  from  the  United  States  Bank 
and  its  branches  to  certain  Commonwealth  banks,  de 
signated  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  had  brought 
about  much  business  embarrassment,  since  the  one  de 
pressed  the  manufacturing  interests,  and  the  other 
forced  the  United  States  Bank  and  its  branches  to  call 
in  the  loans  made  upon  the  strength  of  the  Govern 
ment's  deposits.  This  embarrassment  was  greatly  in 
creased  by  the  issue  of  the  executive  order  of  July  llth, 
1836,  directing  that  only  specie  should  be  taken  at  the 
land  offices  for  public  lands.  At  the  moment  there  was 
a  general  speculation  in  Western  lands,  and  only  those 
banks  which  held  Government  deposits  could  furnish 
their  customers  with  specie  ;  the  others,  when  called 
upon  for  gold  and  silver  in  exchange  for  their  notes, 
were  compelled  to  suspend. 

The  Congress,  disapproving  the  favoritism  shown  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and,  probably  foreseeing 
that  a  financial  crisis  of  some  sort  was  impending,  had, 


284  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

on  June  23rd  preceding,  passed  an  Act  ordering  a  more 
general  distribution  of  the  deposits  than  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  had  made.  After  the  specie  order,  and 
a  little  experience  with  its  effect,  the  demand  was  raised 
from  every  quarter  for  an  immediate  execution  of  the 
Act  of  Congress  of  June  23rd.  The  Secretary  hastened 
to  carry  out  the  provision,  with  the  result  of  driving 
those  banks  into  insolvency  which  had  been  able  to 
stand,  the  existing  deposit  banks,  since  they  had  loaned 
the  money  of  the  Government  deposited  in  them,  and 
were  compelled  to  call  in  these  loans  in  the  proportion 
that  they  were  called  upon  to  give  up  these  deposits, 
and  were  left  also  without  the  gold  and  silver  of  the 
Government  to  redeem  their  own  notes.  The  sudden 
calling  in  of  the  loans  also  forced  a  great  number  of  the 
borrowers  into  insolvency. 

Had  the  full  force  of  the  financial  distress  come  in 
1836,  instead  of  a  year  later,  it  might  have  turned  the 
Van  Buren's  election  against  Jackson's  heir,  Mr.  Van 
theetipJni£  nof  Buren  ;  but  as  things  were,  the  Van  Buren 
Administration  was  established,  and  had  had 
an  opportunity  to  get  a  little  foothold,  when  the  finan 
cial  panic  spread  over  the  land.  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his 
advisers  decided  very  properly  not  to  involve  the  Gov 
ernment,  but  to  let  the  people  work  themselves  through 
the  disaster  by  the  natural  course  of  business.  This,  as 
is  usual  in  such  cases,  turned  hosts  of  supporters  into 
opponents. 

The  Administration,  however,  pursued  the  even  tenor 
of  its  way,  and  endeavored  to  draw  the  lesson  of  the  ex 
periences  with  banks  as  places  of  deposit  for  the  funds 
of  the  Government.  In  his  message  of  September  4th, 
The  sub-  1837,  President  Van  Buren  recommended 

Treasury  idea.    that    the    Government    shon]d    cnt    looge    en_ 

tirely  from  banks,  and  should  keep  its  funds  in  the  Unit- 


THE   BANK    AND   THE    SUB-TREASURY         285 

ed  States  Treasury,  and  in  branches  of  the  Treasury, 
under  the  control  of  the  officers  of  the  Treasury.  The 
idea  was  not  original  with  Mr.  Van  Buren.  Mr.  Gor 
don,  of  Virginia,  had  suggested  it  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  during  the  session  of  1834-35,  and  had 
offered  a  plan  for  its  realization,  in  the  form  of  an 
amendment  to  the  bill,  then  before  the  House,  for  regu 
lating  the  deposits.  Mr.  Gordon's  amendment  was  re 
jected  on  February  llth,  1835.  The  significant  thing 
about  it  was  that  the  plan  was  then  supported  by  Whigs 
almost  exclusively,  only  one  Democrat  voting  in 
favor  of  it.  It  is  true  that  only  about  one-half  of  the 
Whigs  in  the  House  supported  it,  and  that  it  could 
hardly,  therefore,  be  called  a  Whig  party  measure  in 
1835.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  certainly  then  opposed 
by  the  Democratic  party. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  a  courageous  thing 
in  Mr.  Van  Buren  to  take  up  the  idea  anew  and  recom 
mend  it  to  Congress.  Not  until  the  session  Theestab- 
of  1839-40,  however,  was  Congress  brought  sSH£££? 
to  approve  the  plan  and  pass  the  law  of  July  system- 
4th,  1840,  establishing  the  Sub -Treasury  system  for 
the  keeping  of  the  funds  of  the  Government.  Dur 
ing  the  discussion  of  the  bill  in  Congress,  its  principle 
developed  into  a  strict  party  question,  the  Democrats 
supporting  it  and  the  Whigs  opposing  it.  The  Whigs 
represented  the  scheme  as  an  attempt  to  break  down  all 
the  banks  in  the  country,  to  keep  the  people's  money 
locked  up  in  the  vaults  of  the  Treasury,  instead  of 
maintaining  it  in  circulation  for  their  benefit,  and  to 
make  the  President  the  arbiter  of  the  business  of  the 
country,  and  thus  develop  still  further  his  autocratic 
power.  The  Whig  protest  was  a  capital  piece  of  dema- 
gogism,  and  it  proved  immediately  and  immensely  at 
tractive  to  the  people.  Before  the  summer  of  1840  wore 


286  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

away  it  was  entirely  clear  that  the  people  had  made  np 
their  minds  to  try  a  Whig  administration,  and  had  ar 
rived  at  this  resolution  under  the  issue  of  the  financial 
questions. 

The  Whig  National  Convention  had  met  in  December, 
1839,  and  had  adopted  no  platform  of  principles.  It 
The  election  had  conciliated  the  factional  differences  in 
of  i84o.  tne  whig  ranks  by  dropping  Clay  and  nom 

inating  General  Harrison,  the  military  hero  of  the 
party,  and  the  Whigs  were  now,  therefore,  free  to  strike 
any  note  in  the  campaign  which  would  please  the  popu 
lar  ear.  The  victory  was  a  clean  sweep,  and  the  Whigs 
immediately  set  about  the  financial  legislation,  which 
was,  as  they  thought,  to  redeem  the  country. 

They  had  attributed  the  distress  in  the  country  chiefly 

to  the  failure  to  re-charter  the  Bank  and  to  the  reduction 

WM    ie  is    °^  *^e  *ar^-     Consequently,   they  immedi- 

lative  projects  ately  passed  a  bill  for  the  incorporation  of  a 

in   regard    to,^,  ,-I-T  i  <>      • 

the  Bank  and  bank,  when,  to  their  dismay  and  confusion, 
Mr.  Tyler,  elected  Vice-President,  and,  upon 
the  sudden  death  of  Mr.  Harrison,  successor  to  the  presi 
dential  office,  vetoed  the  bill.  The  leaders  of  the  party 
in  Congress  consulted  with  the  President  in  regard  to 
a  bank  bill  which  would  be  acceptable  to  him,  and 
drafted  one  which  followed  his  suggestions  in  all  essen 
tial  principles,  and  contained  only  a  few  divergent  de 
tails,  put  in  probably  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  a 
show  of  legislative  independence,  but  the  President  con 
sidered  these  differences  essential  and  vetoed  the  second 
bill.  The  bills  for  suspending  the  reductions  of  the 
duties  met  with  the  same  fate,  two  of  them  being  suc 
cessively  vetoed. 

After  the  Bank  vetoes  all  the  members  of  the  Cabinet, 
except  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Webster,  resigned, 
and  after  the  tariff  vetoes  Mr.  Webster  retired,  so  soon 


THE  BANK   AND   THE   SUB-TREASURY         287 

as  the  diplomatic  negotiations  with  Great  Britain,  then 
in  progress,  permitted. 

The  Whigs  regarded  Mr.  Tyler  as  a  traitor  to  the 
party  and  began  a  war  upon  the  veto  power  The  ty 
of  the  President.  They  had  come  back  again  treason  of 

•  Tyler  and  the 

to  their  original  principle  of  government  —  whig   war 
.  f.      ,      .  i   ,  nponftePref- 

the  supremacy  of  the  legislature  over  the  ex-  ident's  veto 

,  .  power. 

ecutive. 

From  this  account,  it  is  clearly  manifest  that  the 
Whig  party  did  not  stand  upon  any  fundamental  prin 
ciple  which  would  enable  it  to  meet  successfully  those 
questions  which,  after  the  final  settlement  given  to 
the  bank  and  tariff  issues  by  the  vetoes  of  President 
Tyler,  came  to  the  front  —  the  questions  of  territorial 
extension  and  of  slavery  extension. 

It  might  be  thought,  at  first  view,  that  the  Demo 
cratic  party  of  that  day  was  no  better  prepared  than  the 
Whig  party  to  encounter  these  questions,  The 
since  it,  too,  had  reached  its  distinctive  posi-  counter 
tion  through  its  attitude  in  economic  issues. 
But  the  strength  of  the  Democratic  party 
lay  in  the  South,  and  the  South  had  a  strong  8iou- 
interest  in  territorial  extension  for  the  purpose  of  slavery 
extension,  which,  so  long  as  the  Southern  wing  of  the 
Democratic  party  ruled  the  party,  would  furnish  a  clear 
and  definite  aim  to  the  policy  of  the  party,  and  would, 
thereby,  give  it  great  advantage  over  the  Whigs,  whose 
Northern  and  Southern  contingents  were  much  more 
evenly  balanced,  and,  therefore,  as  to  these  questions, 
less  able,  or,  rather,  entirely  unable,  to  gain  a  position 
upon  which  they  might  make  a  common  stand.  In  a 
word,  as  to  the  Whig  party,  there  was,  after  1842,  noth 
ing  to  take  the  place  of  their  overthrown  economic  poli 
cies,  while,  as  to  the  Democratic  party,  there  was  terri 
torial  extension  for  the  sake  of  slavery  extension.  When 


°x- 


288  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

these  latter  questions  came  to  the  front,  therefore,  they 
were  destined,  sooner  or  later,  to  disrupt  the  Whig- 
party  and  destroy  it  altogether.  The  whole  South 
would  be  for  territorial  extension,  chiefly  for  the  sake  of 
slavery  extension,  and  a  large  party  at  the  North  would 
be  for  territorial  extension  per  se.  The  opposition  to 
territorial  extension  must,  therefore,  become  sectional, 
and  as  that  opposition  came  chiefly  from  the  Whig  party 
it  was  the  Whig  party  which  would  be  degraded  from 
its  national  character  by  this  question,  and  then  de 
stroyed  by  it  and  its  attendant  question  of  slavery  ex 
tension. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

TEXAS 

Arkansas  and  Michigan — Florida  and  Iowa — Texas — The  Austin 
Grant — Local  Government  in  Texas — The  Attempts  by  the 
United  States  to  Purchase  Texas— The  Texan  Revolution — 
General  Sam  Houston — San  Jacinto  and  Independence — The 
Recognition  of  the  Independence  of  Texas — Calhoun's  frank 
Declaration  in  Regard  to  the  Annexation  of  Texas— The  Mis 
sion  of  Mr.  Morfit  to  Texas,  His  Report  and  Advice — Jackson's 
Recommendation  to  Delay  the  Recognition  of  Texan  Indepen 
dence — Jackson's  Request  of  Congress  for  Authority  to  Issue 
an  Ultimatum  to  Mexico  in  the  Claims  Question — Texan  Inde 
pendence  Recognized  by  the  United  States— The  Question  of 
Annexation — Texan  Proposition  for  Annexation — The  Mexican 
Claims  Commission  and  its  Work — Tyler  as  an  Advocate  of 
Annexation — Mr.  Webster  in  the  Way  of  Annexation — The 
Adams  Address  on  Annexation — The  Retirement  of  Webster — 
The  Promotion  of  Upshur,  and  His  Negotiations  with  the  Tex- 
ans — The  Threat  of  the  Mexican  Government  to  Consider  the 
Annexation  of  Texas  a  Cause  of  War — The  Administration 
Proposes  Annexation  to  the  Texan  Agent— The  Difficulty  in 
the  Way  of  Acceptance  of  the  Proposition  — The  Demand  of 
the  Texans  for  Protection  in  the  Interim — Mr.  Calhoun  in  the 
State  Department — The  Treaty  of  Annexation  Signed — The 
Treaty  in  the  Senate  and  its  Rejection — Mr.  Archer's  Opposi 
tion  to  the  Treaty— The  New  Plan  for  Annexation. 

AFTER  the  admission  of  Missouri  there  remained  as 
territory,  upon  which,  according  to  existing  law,  it  was 
19 


290  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

probable   that   slaveholding  Commonwealths   would  be 
established,  only  Arkansas  and  Florida. 

In  1836,   Arkansas  was  admitted   as   a  slaveholding 
Commonwealth,   and   Michigan   as   a  non-slaveholding 

Arkansas  Commonwealth,  thus  keeping  the  exact 
?an-  balance  in  the  Senate.  By  a  compact  of 
the  year  1832,  the  Seminoles  in  Florida  had  agreed  to 
emigrate  within  three  years  to  the  west  bank  of  the  Mis 
sissippi.  At  the  end  of  this  period,  one  of  their  chiefs, 
Osceola,  repudiated  the  agreement,  and  with  a  large  fol 
lowing  began  hostilities.  By  a  long  and  expensive  war 
the  Indians  were  at  last  expelled  ;  and  the  white  inhabi 
tants  immediately  chose  delegates  to  a  convention,  who 
met,  in  December  of  1838,  formed  a  Commonwealth 
constitution,  one  of  the  provisions  of  which  legalized  sla- 

Fiorida  and  very>  anc*-  demanded  of  Congress  admission 
Iowa.  int0  the  Union.     Congress  kept  Florida  wait 

ing,  however,  for  six  years,  until  Iowa  was  ready,  and  then 
admitted  the  two  at  the  same  time  and  by  the  same  Act. 
Meanwhile  the  events  in  the  Southwest  had  been  so 
shaping  themselves  as  to  open  up  prospects  for  the  long 
Texas  desired  territorial  extension  in  that  quarter. 
The  long  dispute  between  Spain  and  France, 
and  then  after  1803,  between  Spain  and  the  United 
States,  in  regard  to  the  territory  between  the  Eio  Grande 
del  Norte  and  the  Sabine  Rivers,  called  Texas,  was  first 
definitely  settled  in  1819,  or  rather  in  the  Treaty  of  that 
year,  between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  which  Treaty 
was  not  executed,  as  we  have  seen,  until  a  little  later. 
In  it  this  territory  was  recognized  by  the  United  States 
as  belonging  to  Spain.  It  seems  that  a  few  persons  from 
the  United  States  had  settled  upon  this  territory,  while 
it  was  disputed  ground,  and  raised  some  complaint  at 
having  been  left  unprotected  by  the  Government  in  the 
Treaty  with  Spain. 


TEXAS  291 

The  successful  rebellion  of  Mexico  against  Spain  made 
this  territory  a  part  of  the  new  Mexican  state,  and  be 
fore  Mexico  had  had  time  to  consolidate  its  powers  or 
estimate  the  value  of  its  northern  possessions,  a  shrewd 
Yankee  from  Connecticut,  who  had  removed  to  Missouri, 
and  had  become  well  skilled  in  the  arts  and  The  Austin 
practices  of  border  life,  Moses  Austin,  went  grant 
to  Mexico,  and  representing  himself,  it  is  said,  as  the 
leader  of  a  company  of  Roman  Catholics,  who  had  suf 
fered  persecution  in  the  United  States,  for  their  relig 
ion's  sake,  solicited  a  grant  of  land  from  the  Catholic 
government  of  Mexico,  and  permission  to  make  a  settle 
ment  upon  it.  The  Mexicans  gave  ready  ear  to  his 
complaints  and  petition,  and  made  him  a  large  grant  of 
land  in  the  central  part  of  Texas  on  the  Colorado  River. 
Mr.  Austin  died  before  effecting  the  settlement,  and  left 
the  work  to  his  son,  S.  F.  Austin,  who,  in  1822,  colo 
nized  the  grant,  and  received  a  ratification  of  the  same 
from  the  Mexican  Government,  the  following  year. 

At  that  moment,  Texas  and  Coahuila  formed  a  single 
Mexican  province,  and,  after  the  establishment  of  the 
federal  system  of  government  in  Mexico,  the 

i  •      4<i£iM         r^  Local  gov- 

provmce  became,  in  1827,  a  Commonwealth,   em  men  t  m 
In   the   Coahuila   part   the   population  was 
Mexican,  and  as  it  was  much  larger  than  the  Anglo- 
American  population  in  the  Texas  part,  the  government 
of  the  Commonwealth  was  practically  in  the  hands  of 
Mexican  officials.     The  rule  of  these  officials  was  arbi 
trary  and   uncertain,  and  the  race   prejudice   between 
Spaniard  and  Anglo-Saxon  was  immediately  excited  by 
it.     It  was   pretty   evident  that   the  expulsion  of  the 
Americans  from  Texas  was  intended.      In  1830,  came   M 
at  last  the  decree  from  the  Mexican  President,  Busta-    R 
mente,  prohibiting  further  immigration  into  Texas  from 
the  United  States. 


292  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  Texan  colonists  now  numbered  some  twenty 
thousand,  mostly  bold  and  hardy  men,  and  it  was  not  to 
be  expected  that  they  would  either  give  up  their  lands, 
or  assist  in  preventing  further  immigration,  or  submit 
much  longer  to  the  foreign  rule,  as  they  felt  it  to  be,  of 
Mexico  or  Coahuila. 

Both  in  1827  and  in  1829,  the  United  States  Gov 
ernment  attempted  to  purchase  Texas,  and  in  the  latter 
The  attempts  year  the  proposition  was  actually  made  to 
sLXfto'SS  tne  Mexican  Government  to  sell  to  the  Unit- 
chase  Texas.  ed  states  the  territory  lying  to  the  north 
west  of  the  watershed  of  the  River  Nu-eces.  It  was, 
however,  promptly  rejected  by  that  Government. 

Naturally  these  attempts  encouraged  the  colonists  in 
Texas  to  feel  that  the  United  States  sympathized  with 
them  in  their  desire  for  emancipation  from  Mexican 
rule,  and  to  hope  that  this  sympathy  might,  at  some 
future  time,  lead  to  positive  assistance. 

The  Texans  were,,  however,  for  the  moment,  left  to 
their  own  devices.  They  first  tried  to  have  Texas  sepa 
rated  from  Coahuila  and  made  a  separate  Common 
wealth  of  the  Mexican  Union,  but  the  Mexican  central 
government  refused  to  assent  to  this.  This  was  in 
Overthrow  1833.  Two  years  later  Santa  Anna,  the 
"fy8%fmdein  Mexican  President,  forcibly  displaced  the 
Mexico.  federal  system  of  government  established  in 

Mexico  by  the  constitution  of  1824,  and  instituted  the 
centralized  system,  virtually  by  a  presidential  edict. 

Some  of  the  Commonwealths  of  the  Mexican  Union 
resisted  this  usurpation  of  the  President,  and  among 
them,  naturally,  was  Coahuila-Texas.  Moreover,  some  of 
the  Coahuila  members  of  the  legislature  of  the  Common 
wealth,  partisans  of  Santa  Anna,  withdrew  from  that 
body,  and  the  Texan  members  found  themselves,  for 
the  first  time,  in  a  majority  in  it.  Of  course  the  feeling 


TEXAS  293 

of  resistance  to  the  overthrow  of  the  right  of  local  self- 
government  became  now  a  settled  and  resolute  purpose 
with  them,  and  Santa  Anna,  upon  learning  their  atti 
tude,  resolved  to  reduce  them  to  obedience  by  military 
power. 

In  September  of  1835,  a  Mexican  war-ship  appeared 
upon  the  Texan  coast,  and  its  commander  declared  the 
Texan  ports  in  a  state  of  blockade.  About  The  Texan 
the  same  time,  the  Mexican  General  Cos  ap-  «™>1*Hon- 
peared,  with  a  force  of  some  fifteen  hundred  soldiers,  at 
the  Texan  village  of  Gonzales.  The  resistance  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  town  to  Cos's  order  to  surrender  their 
arms  precipitated  the  struggle.  The  Texans  immedi 
ately  organized  a  temporary  government,  drove  the  Mex 
icans  out  of  the  country  before  the  close  of  the  year, 
and,  on  March  2nd,  1836,  declared  their  independence 
of  Mexico. 

While  the  Texan  convention,  which  had  declared  inde 
pendence  and  was  framing  the  constitution  for  the  State 
of  Texas,  was  still  in  session,  the  Mexican  soldiery,  un 
der  the  command  of  Santa  Anna  himself,  returned  to 
Texas  and  committed  the  atrocities  of  the  Alamo  and  of 
Goliad.  After  these  barbarous  deeds  there  could  no 
longer  be  any  hope  of  an  accommodation  between  the 
Mexicans  and  the  Texans.  It  was  independence  or  ex 
termination. 

Happily  for  the  Texans  they  had  now  found  their 
proper  leader,  General  Sam  Houston.  Many  of  the  de 
scriptions  of  this  hero  are  caricatures.  Of  General  Sam 
those  which  approach  the  truth,  that  given  Houeton- 
by  Senator  Benton  is  perhaps  most  nearly  correct.  Ben- 
ton  was  the  lieutenant-colonel  of  the  regiment  in  which 
Houston  served  during  the  war  with  the  Creeks  ;  and 
said  later  of  his  old  comrade,  "I  then  marked  in  him 
the  same  soldierly  and  gentlemanly  qualities  which 


294  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

have  since  distinguished  his  eventful  career  ;  frank, 
generous,  and  brave,  ready  to  do,  or  to  suffer,  whatever 
the  obligations  of  civil  or  military  duty  imposed  ;  and 
always  prompt  to  answer  the  call  of  honor,  patriot 
ism,  and  friendship."  He  was  a  Virginian  by  birth, 
but  an  early  resident  of  Tennessee,  and  had  been  Gov 
ernor  of  Tennessee  before  attaining  his  thirty -fifth 
year.  He  appeared  in  Texas  in  1833,  and  in  1835  was 
made  commander  of  the  Texan  army.  It  was  chiefly 
his  skill  and  bravery,  which  effected  the  expulsion  of 
Cos  and  his  army  in  the  winter  of  1835-36.  After  the 
disasters  at  the  Alamo  and  at  Goliad,  he,  in  command  of 
the  remnants  of  the  Texan  army,  retreated  slowly  be 
fore  Santa  Anna's  comparatively  large  force,  until  Santa 
Anna  made  the  blunder  of  dividing  his  army  by  the 
swollen  waters  of  the  San  Jacinto,  when  he  turned  sud 
denly  upon  the  Mexicans,  and  inflicted  upon  them  the 
crushing  defeat  known  as  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto,  in 
San  Jacinto  wni°n  ^ne  Mexicans  loss  was  double  the  num- 
and  indepen-  ber  of  Houston's  armv,  some  sixteen  hundred 

dence.  ^ 

men,  including  Santa  Anna  himself  among 
the  captives.      The  part  of   the  Mexican  army  which 
had  not  crossed  the  river  retreated  precipitately  from 
Texan  soil,  and  the  new  State  had  won  its  independence. 
The  battle  of  San  Jacinto  was  fought  on  April  21st, 
1836.     The  convention  had  finished   the    constitution 
Texas  as  a    more  than  a  month  before.     In  September 
Re"ubiiciOTial   ^ °H°wing>  General  Houston  was  elected  Presi 
dent  of  the  new  republic,  and  the  constitution 
was  almost  immediately  put  into  operation.     This  con 
stitution  legalized  the  existence  of  slavery  in  Texas,  as  a 
constitutional  right  of  the  masters,  prohibited  the  resi 
dence  of  free  negroes  within  the  State  without  special 
official  permission,  and  interdicted  the  importation  of 
negro  slaves,  except  from  the  United  States. 


TEXAS  295 

A  little  more  than  a  month  after  the  battle  of  San  Ja- 
cinto,  the  legislature  of  Connecticut  set  the  ball  in  mo 
tion  for  the  recognition  of  the  independence  T  h  e  recog. 
of  Texas  by  the  Government  of  the  United  ?^en°JeD^ee 
States.  On  May  27th,  1836,  the  two  Houses  of  Texas, 
of  that  body  passed  a  resolution  instructing  the  Sena 
tors,  and  requesting  the  Representatives,  in  Congress 
from  Connecticut  "  to  use  their  best  endeavors  to  pro 
cure  the  acknowledgment,  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  independence  of  Texas."  Evidently  the 
Yankee  Commonwealth  considered  itself,  in  an  especial 
degree,  the  motherland  of  the  new  State.  The  founder 
of  the  colony,  which  had  now  become  an  independent 
State,  was  one  of  its  children,  and  it  hastened  to  antici 
pate  Virginia,  the  birthplace  of  Houston,  in  owning  its 
offspring.  A  careful  perusal  of  the  whole  of  this  Con 
necticut  document  will  certainly  leave  the  impression 
upon  the  mind  of  the  impartial  reader,  at  this  day,  that 
the  people  of  the  North  then  considered  the  Texan  revo 
lution  to  have  been  provoked  by  Mexican  misrule  and 
barbarism,  and  to  have  been  fully  justified  in  political 
ethics  as  well  as  by  practical  success. 

On  June  13th,  Senator  Niles,  of  Connecticut,  pre 
sented  the  Connecticut  memorial  to  the  Senate,  and  it 
was  immediately  referred  to  the  committee  on  Foreign 
Eelations.  On  the  18th,  Mr.  Clay,  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  reported  a  resolution  :  "That  the  indepen 
dence  of  Texas  ought  to  be  acknowledged  by  the  United 
States  whenever  satisfactory  information  shall  be  received 
that  it  has,  in  successful  operation,  a  civil  government 
capable  of  performing  the  duties  and  fulfilling  the  obli 
gations  of  an  independent  Power."  The  resolution  was 
adopted  by  the  Senate,  on  July  1st,  without  a  dissenting 
voice. 

During  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  it,  Mr.  Calhoun 


296  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

frankly  told  the  Senate  that  he  regarded  the  great  im 
portance  of  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Texas 
to  consist  in  the  fact  that  it  prepared  the 


frank  deciara-  Way  f  or  the  speedy  admission  of  Texas  into 

tionm  regard  J  .  •  •    , 

to  the  annexa-  the  Union,  which  would  be  a  necessity  to 

tion  of  Texas.      ,  ,     ,  T_    .     J  , 

the  proper  balance  of  power  in  the  Union  be 
tween  the  slaveholding  and  the  non-slaveholding  Com 
monwealths,  upon  which  the  preservation  of  the  Union 
and  the  perpetuation  of  its  institutions  rested.  After 
such  a  statement  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  anybody  could 
speak  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  being  a  slaveholders' 
secret  intrigue.  Mr.  Calhoun,  the  great  leader  of  the 
slaveholders,,  the  director  of  their  policy,  here  at  the 
very  outset  openly  proclaimed  their  purpose.  The  fact 
is  that,  at  the  time  of  the  Texan  declaration  of  inde 
pendence,  almost  everybody  would  have  favored  the 
annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States,  out  of  race 
sympathy  with  the  Texans  and  desire  for  territorial  ex 
tension,  except  for  the  international  complications  with 
Mexico,  which  must  inevitably  result.  It  was  the 
struggle  over  the  Abolition  petitions  in  1836,  1837,  and 
1838  which  turned  the  thoughts  of  men  upon  the  inter 
nal  questions  involved  in  the  movement,  and  caused  the 
North  generally  to  reconsider  its  attitude  upon  the 
question. 

On  July  4th,  1836,  the  House  of  Kepresentatives 
passed  a  resolution  of  the  same  tenor,  and  expressed  in 
nearly  the  same  words,  as  the  Senate  resolution  of  July 
1st.  It  seems  to  have  been  called  forth  by  memorials 
from  citizens  of  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania. 

Assured  thus  of  the  feeling  of  Congress,  the  President 
sent  an  agent,  Mr.  Henry  M.  Morfit,  to  Texas  during 
the  summer  of  1836,  in  order  to  procure  exact  infor 
mation  of  tfye  state  of  affairs  there.  Mr.  Morfit  wrote  to 
the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Forsyth,  that  the  constitu- 


1037  101°  99  97°  95°  93° 

Longitude       West       from       Greenwich 

TEXAS, 


25 


10.", 


101  THE   M.-N.  CO,99BlJFF 


BBITIRSITY 


TEXAS  297 

tion  of  March  17th  was  soon  to  be  put  into  operation  ; 
that  General  Houston  had  been  elected  President ;  that 
the  constitution  was  fashioned  after  that  of  The  miggion 
the  United  States ;  that  the  desire  for  an-  of  Mr.  Morfit 
nexation  to  the  United  States  was  universal ;  report  and  ad- 
that  the  boundaries  asserted  by  the  new  State 
were  the  Rio  Grande  del  Norte  on  the  south  and  south 
west,  the  longitude  from  the  source  of  the  Rio  Grande  to 
the  boundary  of  the  United  States  on  the  west,  the  south 
ern  boundary  of  the  United  States  on  the  north  and  north 
east,  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  on  the  east ;  that  the  popu 
lation  amounted  to  about  sixty-five  thousand  souls,  of 
whom  about  fifty  thousand  were  Anglo-Americans  ;  that 
the  standing  army  numbered  about  twenty-two  hundred 
men,  and  could  be  increased  to  seven  or  eight  thousand 
in  an  emergency  ;  that  the  navy  consisted  of  four  ves 
sels,  carrying  twenty-nine  guns ;  that  the  funds  of  the 
State  consisted  of  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  millions  of 
acres  of  public  lands,  worth,  at  least,  ten  millions  of 
dollars,  and  that  contributions  were  flowing  in  from  pri 
vate  individuals  in  the  United  States  ;  that  the  debt  was 
about  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars ;  that 
the  supplies  for  the  winter  campaign  were  already  pro 
vided  ;  and  that  there  was  not  a  Mexican  soldier  north 
of  the  Rio  Grande,  although  there  were  rumors  that  the 
Mexican  government  was  making  preparations  for  a  new 
invasion  in  the  winter,  which  were  not,  however,  credited 
by  the  Texans. 

This  was  certainly  a  good  showing  for  Texas.  If 
with  an  army  of  seven  hundred  men,  under  a  provisory 
government,  the  Texans  drove  the  Mexicans  out  of 
Texas,  they  could,  under  well  established  government, 
and  with  an  army  ten  times  as  large,  most  surely  keep 
them  out.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that  Santa 
Anna  was  still  a  prisoner  in  their  hands,  Mr.  Morfit, 


298  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

however,  expressed  the  belief  that  most  of  the  men  and 
money  for  the  army  came  from  the  United  States,  and, 
therefore,  advised  delay  in  assuming  a  definite  attitude 
toward  the  new  State. 

President  Jackson  transmitted  this  information  to 
Congress,  in  his  message  of  December  21st,  1836,  and 
Jackson's  recommended  delay  in  recognizing  the  inde- 
to°Tomdne?aa7  pendence  of  Texas.  On  January  llth,  1837, 
tion  orTelan  however,  Senator  Walker,  of  Mississippi,  of- 
independence.  fered  a  resolution  in  the  Senate  to  the  effect 
that  it  would  be  expedient  and  proper  to  recognize  the 
independence  of  Texas,  and  stated  that  he  had  infor 
mation  that  the  projected  invasion  of  Texas  by  a  new 
Mexican  army,  the  rumors  of  which  were  reported  by 
Mr.  Morfit,  had  most  probably  been  abandoned. 

Before  the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Walker  was  taken 

up  for  discussion,  a  message  from  the  President  was 

communicated    to   Congress   recommending 

The  q  u  e  s  -     . .  .  D  . ,       .    .         . ,       ~        P 

tion  of  Mexi-  the  passage  of  an  act,  authorizing  the  Posi 
tions0  to*  1;he  dent  to  make  reprisals  upon  Mexico,  in  case 
te8'  Mexico  should  refuse  another  demand  made 
upon  her  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  matters  in 
controversy  between  her  and  the  United  States.  The 
citizens  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had 
many  claims  against  Mexico  and  the  Mexicans  for  dep 
redating  the  commerce,  seizing  the  seamen,  and  insult 
ing  the  flag  of  the  United  States,  and  the  demands  for 
the  satisfaction  of  these  claims  had  been  almost  uni 
formly  disregarded.  The  relations  between  the  two 
Governments  were  already  greatly  strained  on  this  ac 
count,  and  when,  in  the  autumn  of  1836,  President 
Jackson  authorized  General  Gaines  to  advance  his  troops 
into  northwestern  Texas,  if  he  should  deem  it  necessary 
for  the  protection  of  the  frontiers  of  the  United  States 
against  the  Indians  in  Texas,  who,  on  account  of  the 


TEXAS  299 

War  between  Mexico  and  Texas,  had  been  thrown  into 
a  great  state  of  excitement  and  unrest,  the  Mexican 
Minister,  Sefior  Gorastiza,  demanded  his  passports, 
issued  a  sort  of  manifesto  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  and  left  Washington. 

It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  President  Jackson 
would  quietly  brook  such  defiance  from  a  half  civilized 
State  and  its  agents.  He  immediately  caused  Mr.  Ellis, 
the  Charge  d'  Affaires  of  the  Government  at  the  Mexi 
can  capital  to  make  a  final  demand  on  the  Mexican 
government.  Mr.  Ellis  made  his  demand  in  writing,  on 
September  26th.  After  much  delay  the  Mexican  Min 
ister  of  Foreign  Affairs  replied,  admitting  Jack8011,s 
the  justice  of  some  of  the  claims,  and  requir-  request  of 

J  .     „  ,  .  Congress    for 

1112;  more  miormation  about  others,  but  oner-  authority   t  o 

.  ,.  ,,   ,,       .         ,.  ^      n          issue  an  ulti- 

mg  no  reparation  at  all  for  insults  to  the  flag  m  a  t  u  m  to 


and  to  the  consular  officers  of  the  United 
States.      The   President's  patience  was  ex-  tion' 
hausted,  and  he  sent  the  message  of  February  6th, 
to  Congress,  asking  for  authority  to  make  a  final  de 
mand  from  the  decks  of  a  war-ship. 

Congress  was  not,  however,  willing  to  invest  the 
President  with  the  contingent  power  to  make  offensive 
war.  The  recommendation  of  the  President  in  the  case 
had,  nevertheless,  considerable  influence  in  determining 
the  minds  of  the  Senators  in  regard  to  the  question  of 
recognizing  the  independence  of  Texas.  On  March  1st, 
1837,  the  Senate  adopted  Mr.  Walker's  resolution.  On 
the  previous  day  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
voted  to  insert  in  the  civil  and  diplomatic  appropriation 
bill  an  item  for  the  expenses  of  a  diplomatic  agent  to 
Texas,  whenever  the  President  should  receive  satisfac 
tory  evidence  that  Texas  was  an  independent  Power  and 
should  consider  it  expedient  to  appoint  such  a  minister. 
President  Jackson  had  invited  this  expression  of  the 


300  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

views  of  Congress  in  his  message  of  the  previous  De 
cember,  in  which  he  expressed  the  view  that  Congress 
ought  to  determine  the  expediency  of  recognizing  the 
independence  of  Texas,  and,  although  the  resolutions  of 
the  two  Houses  of  February  28th  and  March  1st,  1837, 
did  not  formally  assume  to  recognize  that  independence, 
the  President  evidently  attributed  to  them  that  virtue, 
since  he  soon  opened  diplomatic  intercourse  with  the 

Texan  hide-  Texan  agent  at  Washington.  The  resolu- 
he  tions  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  and 
states,  this  act  of  the  President,  taken  together, 
were  regarded  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  and 
by  foreign  Powers  as  a  recognition  of  Texan  indepen 
dence. 

It  was  clear  to  all  thinking  minds  that  the  next  step 
after  independence  would  be  annexation  to  the  United 

The  ues  States.  There  is  little  question  that  Texas 
tion  of  annex-  was  big  enough  and  strong  enough  to  stand 
alone  against  Mexico,  certainly  with  the  aid 
which  she  was  sure  to  receive  from  without  and  with 
the  growth  which  she  was  destined  to  enjoy ;  but  there 
was  no  natural  boundary  between  the  United  States  and 
Texas,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Texas  were  chiefly  Anglo- 
Americans.  The  natural  boundary  of  the  United 
States  on  the  southwest  is  the  desert  between  the  Nueces 
'and  the  Rio  Grande,  and  the  territorial  extension  of  the 
United  States  to  that  limit  was  simply  the :  fulfilment  of 
the  moral  order  of  the  world,  which  tends  to  make  the 
lines  of  states  correspond  with  the  lines  of  physical 
geography  and  of  ethnical  differences.  Except  for  the 
connection  of  the  question  of  slavery  extension  with  that 
of  territorial  extension  after  1836,  the  question  of  the 
annexation  of  Texas  would  have  been  generally  viewed 
in  this  natural  and  national  light.  That  connection, 
however,  made  the  North  generally  assume  the  attitude 


TEXAS  301 

of  opposition  to  annexation,  while  it  greatly  excited  the 
desires  of  the  South  in  favor  of  it. 

On  his  way  homeward  from  the  Congress  which  voted 
in  favor  of  annexation,  Mr.  Webster  made  a  great  speech 
in  New  York,  in  which  he  declared  himself  Webster  on 
opposed  to  annexation  on  the  ground  that  annexation 
it  would  extend  slavery.  Mr.  Calhoun  had,  nearly  a 
year  before,  as  we  have  seen,  declared  himself  in  favor 
of  it  for  the  same  reason.  After  these  two  declarations, 
from  such  leaders,  the  eyes  of  the  people  were  open  to 
every  feature  of  the  question,  and  it  could  not  have  been 
any  longer  a  matter  of  intrigue. 

In  August,   1837,   the  Texan  agent  at  Washington, 
General  Hunt,  proposed  to  President   Van 
Buren  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United 


States.     The  President  promptly  and  firmly 

declined,  and  the  matter  rested  during  the  remainder  of 

his  Administration. 

The  sudden  and  unexpected  accession  of  Vice-Presi 
dent  Tyler  to  the  presidency,  in  1841,  was  the  event 
which  opened  the  way  for  the  commencement  of  nego 
tiations  for  annexation.  The  new  President  was  known 
to  be  favorable  to  the  project. 

Meanwhile  the  diplomatic  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico,  so  suddenly  broken  off  in 
the  latter  part  of  President  Jackson's  Admin-  The 
istration,  had  been  renewed  in  the  early  part 
of  President  Van  Buren's  Administration,  and  its  work. 
and,,  after  considerable  negotiation  in  regard  to  the 
claims  against  Mexico,  a  convention  between  the  two 
Powers  had  been  arranged,  and,  on  April  8th,  1840, 
proclaimed  by  the  President  as  definitely  concluded. 
The  convention  provided  that  the  claims  of  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  against  Mexico  should  be  submit 
ted  to,  and  decided  by,  a  commission,  which  should  be 


302  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

composed  of  two  members  appointed  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  of  two  other  members  appointed 
by  the  President  of  Mexico  ;  that  the  commissioners 
should  meet  in  Washington  within  three  months  from 
the  date  of  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  conven 
tion  ;  that  the  commission  should  terminate  its  duties 
within  eighteen  months  from  the  time  of  its  first  meet 
ing  ;  and  that  when  the  commissioners  could  not  come 
to  any  decision,  the  question  upon  which  they  might 
disagree  should  be  referred  to  an  arbiter  appointed  by 
the  King  of  Prussia,  etc.  With  this  the  question  of  the 
private  claims  against  Mexico,  already  submitted,  was, 
momentarily,  put  at  rest.  The  claim  of  satisfaction  for 
public  injuries  and  affronts  remained  unsettled,  and  no 
provision  was  made  for  the  consideration  of  private 
claims  which  had  not  been  submitted  before  the  ratifi 
cation  of  the  convention,  or  of  those  which  might  arise 
after  the  same  date.  Plenty  of  opportunities  were  thus 
left  for  the  rise  of  difficulties  in  the  claims  question 
which  might  lead  to  hostile  relations  between  the  two 
Powers. 

As  early  as  the  winter  of  1841-42,  it  was  suspected 

that  President  Tyler's  Administration  was  preparing  to 

T  ler  as  an  moye  ^n  ^ne  matter  of  annexation.     In  fact, 

advocate  of  Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  the  President's  bosom 

annexation.  .  . 

friend,  and  his  organ  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  reiterated  upon  the  floor  of  the  House,  on 
January  26th,  1842,  Mr.  Calhoun's  doctrine  about 
annexation,  pronounced  in  1836,  that  the  annexation 
of  Texas  was  essential  to  slavery  extension,  that  sla 
very  extension  was  necessary  to  preserve  the  balance 
of  power  between  the  North  and  the  South  in  the 
Union,  and  that  the  preservation  of  this  balance  of 
power  was  the  necessary  condition  of  the  perpetuity  of 
the  Union. 


TEXAS  303 

Mr.  Wise  expressed  this  opinion  in  the  midst  of  an 
acrimonious  debate,  and  whether  he,  in  an  unguarded 
moment,  betrayed  the  policy  of  the  President,  or  simply 
gave  vent  to  his  own  excited  feelings,  is  still  one  of  the 
speculations  of  American  history. 

So  long,  however,  as  Mr.  Webster  remained  at  the 
head  of  the  State  Department  it  was  impossible  for  the 
President  to  make  any  progress  with  a  defi-  Mr  Webster 
nite  plan  for  annexation,  even  if  he  enter-  in  the  way  of 

annexation. 

tained    one.      Nevertheless,    thirteen    anti- 
slavery  Whig  members  of  Congress,  led  by  Mr.   John 
Qirincy  Adams,  issued,  on  March  3rd,  1843,  an  address  to 
the  people  of  the  non-slaveholding  Common- 

i   i         -,      T      •  ,n  i    />     -.L          Tne  Adams 

wealths,  declaring  that   there  was  a  definite  address  on  an- 
plan  of  annexation  already  settled  upon,  and 
about  to  be  consummated,  and  denouncing  the  execu 
tion  of  it  as  being  tantamount  to  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union. 

On  May  8th,  1843,  Mr.  Webster  resigned  the  secre 
taryship  of  State.  It  was  said  by  some  that  the  Presi 
dent  drove  him  out,  in  order  to  appoint  a 
Secretary  who  would  carry  out  his  plans  for  ment  of  Web- 
the  annexation  of  Texas;  but  Mr.  Webster 
himself  indicated  by  his  acts  and  words  that  he  had 
determined  to  resign  more  than  a  year  before,  and  had 
remained  in  office  only  for  the  purpose  of  concluding 
the  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  which  culminated 
in  the  Ashburton  Treaty,  an  agreement  in  which  Mr. 
Webster's  section  had  an  especial  interest. 

There  is  little  question,  however,  that  President  Tyler 
was  glad  to  have  him  go,  for  the  President  placed  the 
annexation  of  Texas  before  every  other  policy  of  his 
Administration. 

Soon  after  Mr.  Webster's  resignation  the  President 
transferred  Mr.  Upshur  from  the  secretaryship  of  the 


304  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Navy  to  that  of  State.  Mr.  Upshur  was  the  man  whom 
suspicion  had  already  marked  as  the  confidant  of  the 
The  promo-  President  in  the  annexation  scheme.  This 
and  ^s  suspicion  was  speedily  confirmed  by  his  en- 
-iS-  Bering,  almost  immediately,  upon  negotia- 
ans-  tions  with  the  Texan  agent  at  Washington, 

Mr.  Van  Zandt,  for  annexation. 

Soon  after  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
Texas  by  the  United  States,  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Belgium  took  the  same  step,  presumably  for  the  purpose 
of  establishing  commercial  relations  with  the  new  State. 
But,  in  the  summer  of  1843,  the  British  Government  ap 
peared  in  the  character  of  the  most  favored  mediator 
between  Mexico  and  Texas  for  the  recognition  of  the 
independence  of  Texas  by  Mexico  ;  and  a  friend  of 
President  Tyler's  Administration  wrote,  from  London, 
that  a  representative  of  the  anti-slavery  men  in  Texas 
was  in  London,  negotiating  a  loan  of  money  from  an 
English  company,  with  which  to  pay  for  the  liberation 
of  all  the  slaves  in  Texas,  and  that  the  interest  upon  the 
loan  was  to  be  guaranteed  by  the  British  Government, 
on  the  condition  that  the  Texan  Government  would 
abolish  slavery. 

The  Administration  professed  to  credit  this  story, 
and  Mr.  Upshur  wrote  to  General  Murphy,  the  diplo 
matic  agent  of  the  United  States  in  Texas,  informing 
him  of  this  communication  from  London,  and  arguing 
the  double  danger  to  the  United  States  of  British  inter 
ference  in  Texas,  and  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  there. 
This  letter  bears  date  of  August  8th,  1843,  and  is  con 
sidered  as  marking  the  beginning  of  the  actual  nego 
tiations  for  annexation.  It  was  certainly  intended  to 
prompt  General  Murphy  to  sound  the  Texan  Govern 
ment  upon  the  question  of  annexation. 

The  Mexican  Government   evidently  discovered  the 


TEXAS  305 

movement  immediately,  for,  on  August  23rd,  the  Mexi 
can  Secretary  of  State  declared  to  Mr.  Thompson, 
the  Minister  of  the  United  States  to  Mex-  The  threafc 
ico,  that  the  Mexican  Government  would 


consider  any  act  of  the  United  States  to  an-  to  consider  the 

__.  .  .,  iv/r      •  annexation  of 

nex  Texas  as  a  declaration  of  war  on  Mexico.  Texas  a  cause 
For  seven  years  Mexico  had  made  no  war 
on  Texas,  though  professing  to  regard  the  new  State  as 
only  a  rebellious  province.  In  September  of  1842,  sever 
al  marauding  expeditions  had  crossed  the  Eio  Grande, 
raided  around  for  a  few  days,  and  then  returned  to  Mex 
ico.  The  Mexican  Government  called  this  a  continuance 
of  the  war,  and  demanded  that  the  states  of  the  world 
should  observe  the  attitude  of  neutrals  toward  a  friendly 
Power  engaged  in  suppressing  a  rebellion  on  the  part  of 
certain  of  its  lawful  subjects.  This  was  absurd.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  international  law  Texas  had  won 
her  independence,  and  might  make  what  agreements 
she  pleased  with  any  other  Power.  The  President  paid 
no  attention  to  the  Mexican  threat.  On  October  16th, 
1843,  Mr.  Upshur  formally  proposed  annexation  to  Mr. 
Van  Zandt,  and  in  his  message  to  Congress,  The  Admin. 
at  the  beginning  of  the  session  of  1843-44,  istration  pro- 
the  President  indicated  to  Congress  that  the  tion  to  the 

,.    ,.  „  ,.  .  Texan  agent. 

negotiations  for  annexation  were  in  progress, 

and  referred  to  the  fact  that  Mexico  threatened  war  in 

case  the  United  States  should  resolve  to  annex  Texas. 

The  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  negotiations 
was  the  fear  on  the  part  of  the  Texans  that,  upon  the 
signature  of  the  Treaty  by  the  Presidents  of     T 
the  two  countries,  and  before  its  ratification  cuity  in  the 
by  the   respective  Senates,   as   required   by  IX^of  ^Sfe 
the  respective  Constitutions,  the  Mexicans  propos 
would  collect  all  their  forces  and  make  one  supreme 
effort  to  reconquer  Texas.     The  Texans  wanted  the  pro- 
20 


306  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

tection  of  the  United  States  in  this  interim,  and  the 
embarrassing  question  for  Mr.  Tyler's  Administration 
was  whether  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  the 
constitutional  power  to  extend  it.  Would  not  war,  un 
dertaken  in  defence  of  one  foreign  Power  against  an 
other,  be  offensive  war,  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  such  war  as  Congress  alone  can 
authorize  ?  Or,  could  Texas  be  considered  a  part  of  the 
United  States  from  the  moment  that  the  two  Presidents 
signed  the  Treaty  of  annexation,  and  before  its  ratifica 
tion  by  the  respective  Senates,  thus  making  war  in  her 
defence  defensive  war,  such  war  as  the  President  of  the 
United  States  may,  of  his  own  power,  undertake  ? 

About  the  middle  of  January,  1844,  Mr.  Van  Zandt 
demanded  of  Mr.  Upshur  whether,  in  case  the  President 
The  demand  of  Texas  should  agree  to  the  proposition  of 
?OT  peroSon  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  an- 
in  the  interim.  nexation,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
would  protect  Texas,  from  the  moment  of  this  agree 
ment  between  the  two  Presidents,  against  all  foreign 
attack.  Mr.  Upshur  seems  to  have  been  greatly  per 
plexed  by  the  question,  for  he  made  no  reply. 

About  the  middle  of  February,  the  President  of  Texas 
caused  the  same  question  to  be  put  to  the  United  States 
agent  in  Texas,  General  Murphy.  Murphy  was  a  blunt, 
brave  man,  full  of  chivalry,  but  quite  empty  of  consti 
tutional  and  international  law.  He  immediately  re 
turned  an  affirmative  answer,  whereupon  President 
Houston  sent  a  special  envoy  to  Washington,  armed  with 
plenary  power  to  conclude  a  treaty  of  annexation. 

Whether  Secretary  Upshur,  and,  of  course,  the  Presi 
dent,  knew  of  the  promise  which  Murphy  had  made  for 
his  Government  to  Texas,  before  the  sudden  death  of 
Mr.  Upshur,  on  February  28th,  has  never  been  deter 
mined. 


TEXAS  307 

During  the  second  week  of  March,  Mr.  John  Nelson, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  was  temporarily  transferred 
to  the  State  Department,  and  one  of  his  first  acts  was  to 
officially  disavow  Murphy's  promise  to  President  Hous 
ton.  He  very  nearly  informed  Murphy,  however,  that 
President  Tyler  was  personally  pleased  with  what  he 
had  done.  The  Texan  agents  at  Washington  refused, 
however,  to  proceed  with  the  negotiations  until  Presi 
dent  Tyler  would  ratify  Murphy's  promise.  Mr.  Nel 
son  would  not  risk  his  reputation  as  a  constitutional  law 
yer  by  inventing  an  interpretation  of  the  Constitution 
which  would  warrant  this.  At  the  end  of  the  month 
Mr.  Calhoun  was  put  in  his  place,  and  he  was  remanded 
to  the  Department  of  the  Navy. 

About  a  fortnight  after  taking  possession  of  his  office, 
Mr.  Calhoun  officially  informed  the  Texan  agents  at 
Washington  that  the  President  had  ordered 

. ,  , .  Mr.  Calhoun 

the  concentration  of  a  strong  squadron  of  in  the  state 
war-vessels  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  had 
commanded  the  movement  of  land  forces  to  the  south 
western  boundary  of  the  United  States  to  meet  all 
eventualities,  and  that  the  President  would  use  "all  the 
means  placed  within  his  power  by  the  Constitution  "  to 
protect  Texas  against  foreign  invasion  during  the  pen 
dency  of  the  Treaty  of  annexation.  On  the 

The    Trcjitv 

day  following  this  communication,  the  Treaty  of  annexation 
of  annexation  was  signed  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States  and  by  the  Texas  plenipotentiary  for 
the  President  of  Texas. 

Ten  days  after  this,  the  Treaty  was  sent  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  for  ratification.  In  the  message 
accompanying  the  Treaty  the  President  informed  the 
Senate  of  the  disposition  he  had  made  of  the  troops  and 
naval  vessels,  and  justified  the  same  by  the  claim  that  the 
President  makes  the  treaties,  that  the  Senate  only  ratifies 


308  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

them,  that  the  validity  of  the  treaties,  therefore,  dates 
from  the  President's  agreement,  and  that,  therefore,  in 
this  case,  Texas  was,  from  and  after  April  12th,  1844, 
a  part  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  all  of  which 
the  President  was  bound  to  defend  against  foreign  attack. 
Whether  this  was  President  Tyler's  constitutional  law  or 
Mr.  Calhoun's  we  do  not  know.  If  this  doctrine  is  to  he 
ascribed  to  Mr.  Calhoun  it  certainly  marks  a  great  de 
parture  from  the  general  principles  taught  by  him  after 
1830.  One  would  think  that  his  "States'  sovereignty" 
theory  of  the  Union  would  have  led  him  to  attribute  as 
little  power  as  possible  to  the  general  Government,  and 
as  much  of  that  little  as  possible  to  the  Senate,  but  here 
were  both  nationalism  and  Osesarism  combined. 

The  Treaty  was  before  the   Senate,  in  secret  session, 
from  April  22nd  until  June  8th,  when  it  was  rejected 
The  Treaty  by  a  vo^e  °^  thirty-five  to  sixteen.     It  is  not 
and^ts Sr?ec-  necessarv    to    examine   the    reasons    which 
tion.  ..Amoved  the  Northern  Senators  to  vote  against 

it,  but  it  is  important  to  understand  some  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  Senators  from  the  slaveholding  Common 
wealths  opposed  it.  Senator  Benton  declared  that  the 
Treaty  annexed  not  only  Texas  but  parts  of  four  other 
Mexican  provinces,  which  would  be  an  international 
outrage  upon  Mexico.  Most  of  the  Southern  Senators, 
however,  were  influenced  by  the  fear  of  war  with  Mex 
ico.  But  the  most  significant  objection  to  it,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  subsequent  events,  was  that  urged  by 
Mr.  Archer,  of  Virginia,  the  chairman  of  the 

Mr.  Archer's    „  . , ,  -T-I        •  *  «.    •  TT 

opposition  to  Senate  committee  for  Foreign  Affairs.  He 
claimed  that  a  foreign  state  could  not  be  an 
nexed  to  the  United  States  by  means  of  a  treaty,  and 
that,  if  a  foreign  state  could  become  connected  with  the 
Union  at  all,  it  must  be  by  means  of  an  act  of  Congress. 
A  large  number  of  the  Senators  approved  of  this  doc- 


TEXAS  309 

trine.  It  was  a  pregnant  idea  to  the  President  and  Mr~ 
Calhoun.  It  indicated  that  there  was  another  way  to 
accomplish  annexation. 

While  the  Treaty  was  under  consideration  in  the 
Senate,  the  national  conventions  for  the  nomination  of 
presidential  candidates  had  assembled.  The  Whigs  had 
nominated  Mr.  Clay,  who  was  regarded  as  opposed  to 
annexation.  The  friends  to  annexation  in  the  Demo 
cratic  party  had  been  able  to  put  Mr.  Van  Buren  aside, 
and  had  nominated  James  K.  Polk,  of  Tennessee,  an 
outspoken  advocate  of  immediate  annexation,  and  had 
made  the  "  re-occupation  of  Oregon  and  the  re-an 
nexation  of  Texas "  the  chief  plank  in  the  party  plat 
form. 

Here  now  were  all  the  elements  of  a  new  plan  for  an 
nexation,  which  promised  more  success.  They  were, , 
the  doctrine  unwittingly  advanced  by  Mr. 

vL-       i  j    i  The  new 

Archer,  and  as  unwittingly  approved  by  plan  for  an- 
many  of  the  Senators,  that  Texas  could  I 
be  connected  with  the  United  States  only  by  means 
of  an  act  of  Congress  admitting  her  as  a  Common 
wealth  into  the  Union,  the  plank  of  the  platform 
making  annexation  the  chief  issue  of  the  campaign  for 
the  election  of  a  new  President  and  a  new  House  of 
Representatives,  and  the  connection  of  the  Oregon  ques 
tion  with  that  of  annexation,  in  order  to  get  votes  in  the 
North  for  both  projects  at  once. 

On  June  llth,  President  Tyler  took  the  first  step  in 
the  combination  of  these  elements.  He  sent  a  copy 
of  the  rejected  Treaty,  and  all  the  papers  connected 
with  it,  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  together  with 
a  message,  in  which  he  reviewed  the  subject  and  justi 
fied  his  position  in  regard  to  it,  and  declared,  finally, 
that  while  he  had  regarded  a  treaty  as  the  most  suitable 
means  for  accomplishing  annexation,  he  would  co-oper- 


310  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ate  with.  Congress  in  the  use  of  any  other  means  com 
patible  with  the  Constitution  and  likely  to  accomplish 
the  result. 

Before,  however,  following  the  history  of  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas  further,  we  must  present  briefly  the  main 
points  in  the  development  of  the  Oregon  question. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
OREGON 

Extent  of  Oregon  and  Claims  to  it— The  Nootka  Convention — 
Louisiana  and  Oregon — Astoria — The  Joint  Occupation  Agree 
ment  of  1818 — Spain's  Claims  on  Oregon  Ceded  to  the  United 
States  — Renewal  of  the  Convention  of  1818  — The  British 
Policy  in  Reference  to  Oregon — The  Ignorance  of  Oregon  in 
the  United  States  —  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman  —  Dr.  Whitman's 
Mission  to  the  United  States  Government — Dr.  Whitman's 
Colony — The  Democratic  Party  on  the  Oregon  Question. 

AT  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Oregon  was 
universally  recognized  as  the  territory  lying  along  the 
North  Pacific  Ocean  from  the  forty-second 
parallel  of  latitude  to  that  of  fifty-four  de-  Oregon^  and 
grees    and  forty   minutes,  and  reaching  in 
ward  to  the  Rocky  Mountains.     At  that  time  it  was 
claimed  by   Spain  both  by  discovery   and   first   settle 
ment. 

In  the  year  1790,  Great  Britain  advanced  claims  upon 
it.  A  diplomatic  discussion  arose  between  the  two  Pow 
ers,  which  ended  temporarily  in  an  agreement  called  the 
Nootka  Convention,  by  which  no  territorial  The  Npotka 
or  sovereign  rights  or  powers  were  recog-  Convention- 
nized  by  Spain  to  Great  Britain,  but  only  certain  ease 
ments,  so  to  speak,  in  and  upon  this  territory,  such  as 
the  right  to  navigate  the  waters  and  to  fish  in  them,  to 
trade  with  the  natives,  and  to  make  such  temporary 


312  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

settlements  as  might  be  necessary  for  the  reasonable  en 
joyment  of  these  rights. 

In  the  year  1796,  war  was  waged  between  Spain 
and  Great  Britain,  and,  according  to  the  British 
principles  of  that  day,  every  agreement  between  the 
two  Powers  was  abrogated  in  consequence  thereof  ;  so 
that  Spain,  while  retaining  her  sovereignty  over  Ore 
gon,  was  now  relieved  of  the  encumbrance  of  the  British 
rights. 

This  was  the  status  of  Oregon  when  Spain    ceded 

Louisiana  to  France  in  1800,  and  when  France  ceded  the 

same  territory  to  the  United  States  in  1803  ;  and  the 

matter  of  first  concern  to  the  United  States  was  the 

Louisiana  question  whether  Louisiana  contained  Ore- 

and  Oregon.       gQn   Qr   any   part   Qf  fa      jt   jg   probable    that 

President  Jefferson  thought  it  did,  since  the  Lewis  and 
Clark  expedition,  sent  out  by  him  to  examine  the  new 
purchase,  crossed  the  Rockies,  discovered  the  sources  of 
the  Columbia  River,  followed  this  stream  to  the  Pacific, 
and  made  report  thereof  to  the  President.  But  if  he 
did,  he  was  certainly  mistaken.  It  is  true  that  Louisiana 
had  no  western  boundary  positively  fixed  by  any  agree- 
ment  between  the  Powers,  but  the  general  principles 
of  international  law,  to  which  recourse  must  always  be 
had  in  the  absence  of  specific  agreements,  made  the  wa 
ter  shed  of  the  Mississippi  the  western  boundary,  and 
the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  of  1713,  to  which  France  and 
Great  Britain  were  parties,  made  the  forty-ninth  paral 
lel  of  latitude  the  northern  boundary,  westward  from  the 
Lake  of  the  Woods. 

The  founding  of  Astoria,  in  1811,  on  the  south  bank 
of  the  Columbia  River,  about  nine  miles  from 
its  mouth,  is  also  evidence  that  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  thought  it  had  a  claim  upon 
Oregon  as  a  part  of  Louisiana,  since  the  undertaking 


^OT"T^-**^ 

[UH7SRSITY] 


OREGON  313 

proceeded   upon  an   understanding  between  Mr.  John 
Jacob  Astor  and  the  Government. 

The  British  Government  now  did  a  thing  which 
seemed  to  acknowledge  a  claim  of  some  sort  by  the 
United  States  upon  Oregon,,  so  far  as  Great  T^e  joint 
Britain  could  do  so.  Having  taken  forcible  agreemtfof 
possession  of  Astoria  in  the  War  of  1812,  it  1818- 
restored  the  place,  at  the  close  of  the  War,  to  the  pos 
session  of  the  United  States  ;  and  in  a  convention, 
concluded  on  October  18th,  1818,  the  two  Powers  agreed 
upon  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude  as  the 
boundary  between  their  territories,  from  the  Lake  of 
the  Woods  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  upon  joint  oc 
cupation,  as  it  wras  termed,  in  all  territories  and  waters 
claimed  by  either  party  in  North  America  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  without  prejudice  to  any  claims 
which  either  party  might  have  to  any  part  of  the  said 
territory,  or  to  any  claims  which  any  other  Power  might 
have  to  it,  or  to  any  part  of  it.  This  agreement  was  to 
run  for  ten  years. 

An  event  happened  the  following  year  which  made 
the  Washington  Government  doubt  the  wisdom  of  bas 
ing   its   claims  upon  the  Louisiana  cession. 
It   was   the  Treaty  with   Spain   ceding   the  claims  on  ore- 
Floridas.     As  we  have  seen   in  one  of  the  the 


earlier  chapters  of  this  work,  this  Treaty  con- 
tained  a  provision  ceding  to  the  United  States  all  the 
rights  and  sovereignty  of  Spain  in  and  over  the  territory 
lying  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  north  of  the 
forty-second  parallel  of  north  latitude.  Here  was  a 
much  better  claim,  both  as  to  quantity  of  territory  and 
quality  of  right,  than  could  be  founded  on  the  Louisiana 
cession.  If  the  United  States  had  possessed  this  claim 
in  1803,  it  is  doubtful  if  we  should  ever  have  heard  of 
the  notion  that  Oregon  was  a  part  of  Louisiana. 


314  THE    MIDDLE   PERIOD 

In  1828,  the  agreement  of  1818  was  indefinitely  con 
tinued,  but  might  be  terminated  by  a  twelvemonth's 
continua-  notice  by  either  party,  at  any  time.  The 
convention  hof  United  States,  was,  however,  in  a  better  posi 
tion  than  before,  on.  account  of  having  now 
the  Spanish  claims  to  all  territory  above  the  forty-second 
parallel  on  the  Pacific. 

The  element  of  greatest  importance  in  the  settlement 
of  the  question  was,  of  course,  colonization  within  the 
territory,  and  neither  party  had  really  undertaken  that. 
The  hunters  and  trappers  and  agents  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  had  temporary  abodes  within  the  territory, 
especially  north  of  the  Columbia,  and  there  was  one 
settlement  on  the  south  bank  under  the  protection  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  was  all. 

For  some  fourteen  years  longer,  now,  this  indefinite 
status  continued.  In  the  negotiations  between  Mr. 
The  British  Webster  and  Lord  Ashburton,  in  1841  and 
mratoo^  1842,  Mr.  Webster  sounded  Lord  Ashburton 
g°n-  on  the  Oregon  question,  and  found  that  the 

Queen's  agent  had  received  no  power  to  deal  with  the 
matter,  but  drew  the  conclusion  that  the  British  policy 
in  regard  to  Oregon  was  to  prolong  the  existing  modus 
vivendi,  give  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  time  to  settle 
the  country  north  of  the  Columbia,  and  then  agree  to  a 
division  on  the  line  of  that  river. 

It  was  well  for  the  United  States  that  the  Oregon 
question  did  not  enter  into  those  negotiations,  for  down 
The  igno-  to  that  moment  the  Government  at  Wash- 
gao°n  in"0the  ington  knew  almost  nothing  about  the  char- 
tJnited  states.  acter  Of  Oregon  north  of  the  Columbia.  The 
officers  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  continually 
represented  it  as  a  worthless  waste,  fit  only  for  hunting 
and  trapping  ground,  and  almost  worn  out  even  for 
those  purposes.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  the  Gov- 


OREGON  315 

ernment  at  Washington  credited  these  statements,  and 
it  is  quite  possible  that,  in  1842,  it  would  have  com 
promised  with  England  on  the  line  of  the  Columbia. 
The  delay  in  the  settlement  of  the  question  now  gave 
the  Government  the  opportunity  to  learn  something 
more  about  Oregon  from  one  who  knew  the  region  better 
than  any  other  living  man,  and  whose  interests  did  not 
lie  with  those  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  Great 
Britain. 

The  actor  who  now  came  upon  the  scene  was  Dr. 
Marcus  Whitman,,  a  man  of  great  intelligence,  courage, 
energy,  and  high  purpose.  He  had  been  ]>.  Marcus 
sent  out  by  the  American  Board  of  Missions,  Whitman- 
in  the  year  1835,  as  one  of  the  exploring  delegates 
among  the  Indians  in  Oregon.  Dr.  Whitman  soon  made 
up  his  mind  in  regard  to  his  life  work.  He  returned  to 
the  East  in  the  summer  of  1836,  married,  and  went 
back  to  Oregon,  accompanied  by  his  bride  and  by  the 
Rev.  H.  H.  Spaulding  and  wife.  This  was  the  begin 
ning  of  the  settlement  of  Northern  Oregon. 

In  some  way,  we  know  not  exactly  how,  Dr.  Whitman 
learned  that  the  United  States  Government  might  be 
induced  to  sacrifice  Northern  Oregon  in  ignorance  of  its 
true  value  ;  and,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1842,  he 
set  out  from  the  mission  on  the  Walla  Walla  to  go  to 
Washington  and  inform  the  Government  of  the  real 
character  of  the  country  which  he  had  ex-  D  r  Whit_ 
plored.  He  arrived  in  Washington  in  March  man's  mission 
of  1843,  and  gave  President  Tyler  such  full  states  Govem- 
and  truthful  information  concerning  the 
great  value  of  Oregon  north  of  the  Columbia  as  settled 
the  fate  of  that  region. 

Dr.  Whitman  had  come  also  for  another  purpose. 
He  saw  clearly  that  the  way  to  get  Oregon  was  to  colo 
nize  it.  President  Tyler's  Administration  supported  him 


316  THE    MIDDLE   PERIOD 

in  this  view  and  purpose.     The  Administration  caused 

Dr.  Whitman's  descriptions  of  Oregon  to  be  printed  and 

Dr.  whit-  distributed   throughout  the   United   States, 

man's  colony.    and   ajgo    hig   off«er   to    }ead   ft    colony    to    ta^e 

possession  of  the  country.  The  place  of  rendezvous  ap 
pointed  by  him  was  Westport,  near  the  site  of  the  pres 
ent  Kansas  City,  and  the  time  was  June  of  1843.  Nearly 
a  thousand  people,  with  two  hundred  wagons,  met  him 
there,  and  were  successfully  led  by  him  back  to  the 
Walla  Walla.  He  arrived  there  with  this  large  colony 
in  October  of  1843  ;  and  news  of  his  safe  arrival  reached 
Washington  in  January  of  1844. 

The  decisive  movement  for  the  possession  of  Oregon 
was  thus  made.  Claims  based  upon  discovery,  or  treaty, 
or  privileges  for  hunting,  trapping,  or  trading,  must  all 
give  way  before  actual  colonization.  British  diplomacy 
was  confused  by  the  success  of  the  movement,  while  the 
people  of  the  United  States  were  filled  with  pride  and 
enthusiasm  at  the  achievement. 

The  moment  had  come,  at  last,  when  the  United 
States  could  deal  with  Great  Britain  from  the  basis  of 
actual  conditions,  instead  of  from  the  point  of  view  of 
international  theory.  The  connection  of  the  Oregon 
question  with  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas 
in  the  Democratic  platform  of  1844,  was,  therefore,  by 
no  means  far  fetched  or  artificial.  It  was,  indeed,  a 
clever  stroke  of  practical  politics,  but  it  was  suggested 
•by  existing  conditions. 

The  Democrats  had  struck  a  high  note  in  the  interna 
tional  questions,  one  which  was  bound  to  catch  the  ear  of 
The  Demo-  the  younger  men  throughout  the  country. 
thetlo?ergo)n  Moreover,  the  policy  in  both  cases  rested 
question.  upon  sound  national  principles.  Texas, 
at  least  to  the  Nueces,  and  Oregon,  at  least  to  the 
northern  water  shed  of  the  Columbia,  belonged  geo- 


OREGON  317 

graphically  to  the  United  States,  and  they  were  settled, 
so  far  as  they  were  settled  at  all,  by  Anglo-Americans. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  slaveholders  of  the  South  were 
not  particularly  pleased  with  the  connection  of  the  two 
questions.  Some  of  them  had  already  come  to  doubt 
whether  the  annexation  of  Texas  alone  would  subserve 
their  interests,  since  the  slave  population  might  be 
thereby  drawn  away  from  the  border  slaveholding  Com 
monwealths,  and  these  Commonwealths  might  then 
abolish  slavery  by  their  own  several  acts  ;  and  now  that 
it  must  be  paid  for  by  the  addition  of  a  region  to  the 
Northern  side,  large  enough  to  hold  a  dozen  such  Com 
monwealths  as  New  York,  the  price  appeared  to  them 
too  great.  Mr.  Waddy  Thompson,  of  South  Carolina, 
the  Minister  to  the  Mexican  Government,  was  decidedly 
of  this  opinion  ;  and  from  an  original  friend  of  annexa 
tion  he  became  a  determined  opponent.  To  the  far- 
seeing  mind,  it  was  certainly  very  questionable  whether 
the  annexation  of  Texas  would  prove  any  advantage  to 
the  slavery  interest,  and  it  was  certain  that  the  posses 
sion  of  Oregon  would  not. 

But  they  would  subserve,  they  have  subserved,  the  in 
terests  of  a  true  national  development.  The  Democrats 
of  1844  builded  better  than  they  knew,  when  they  made 
the  "re-annexation  of  Texas  and  the  re-occupation  of 
Oregon "  the  issues  of  the  campaign  of  that  year.  In 
the  platform  the  Oregon  question  was  given  the  pre 
cedence.  The  country,  however,  understood  the  strata 
gem,  and  the  question  of  annexation  assumed  the  fore 
most  place  in  the  great  contest. 


GHAPTEE  XV. 

THE   "RE- ANNEXATION  OF   TEXAS  AND   THE  RE-OCCU 
PATION   OF  OREGON" 

The  Popularity  of  the  Democratic  Position,  and  Mr.  Clay's  Letter 
of  August  16th — The  Abolitionists  Declare  against  Mr.  Clay — 
The  Triumph  of  Polk  —  Tyler's  Recommendation  to  Annex 
Texas  by  a  Joint  Resolution  or  an  Act— The  Resolution  for 
Annexation  in  the  House  of  Representatives — Passage  of  an 
Enabling  Act  for  Texas  by  the  House  of  Representatives — The 
Resolution  in  the  Senate  and  Mr.  Archer's  Inconsistencies — 
The  Senate's  Amendment  to  the  Resolution  of  the  House — The 
Concurrence  of  the  House  in  the  Senate's  Amendment,  and 
the  Passage  of  the  Act  for  Admission — The  British  Proposition 
in  Regard  to  Oregon — The  American  Proposition  — Polk's  rec 
ommendation  in  Regard  to  the  Matter  —  The  Debate  upon  the 
President's  Recommendation  —  The  Conclusion  Reached  by 
Congress — The  President's  Retort  upon  Congress — The  Oregon 
Treaty. 

THE  language  of  the  Democratic  platform  signified 
that  Texas  had  been  once  annexed  to  the  United  States, 
as  a  part  of  Louisiana,  by  the  Treaty  of  1803  with  France, 
and  had  been  sacrificed  by  the  Treaty  of  1819  with  Spain, 
and  that  Oregon  had  been  once  occupied  by  the  United 
States,  under  either  the  Treaty  of  1803,  or  under  that  of 
1819,  or  by  the  right  of  the  prior  discovery  of  the  Co 
lumbia  Eiver  and  the  establishment  of  a  settlement 
upon  its  banks.  It  is  thus  that  mortal  men  always  seek 
to  purge  any  movement  which  they  undertake  of  the 
taint  of  innovation,  no  matter  how  justifiable  in  reason 
that  movement  may  be. 


RE-ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS  319 

In  the  beginning  of  June,  the  election  of  Mr.  Clay 
seemed  a  certainty.  As  the  campaign  wore  on  it  be 
came  manifest  that  annexation  was  rapidly  growing  in 
the  popular  favor,  and  that  Mr.  Clay  would  lose  some 
of  his  Southern  support,  unless  the  opinion  which  pre 
vailed  in  that  section  concerning  his  opposi-  T  h  e 
tion  to  annexation  should  be  modified.  With  larity  of  the 

-  ...  ,        Democratic 

this  in  view,  and  under  the  belief  that  the  position  and 

Air  Olftv'fl  Ipf- 

state  of  feeling  upon  the  subject  at  the  North  ter'of  August 
had  become  less  hostile,  Mr.  Clay  caused  to  l 
be  published  in  an  Alabama  newspaper,  on  August  16th, 
a  letter  defining  again  his  attitude  toward  annexation. 

No  sane  and  impartial  mind  can,  at  this  day,  see  any 
material  difference  between  the  opinion  expressed  by 
Mr.  Clay  in  his  letter  of  April  17th,  and  that  in  his 
letter  of  August  16th.  In  the  former,  he  took  the 
ground  that  the  United  States  ought  not  to  annex  Texas 
without  the  consent  of  Mexico,  or  against  the  decided 
opposition  of  a  considerable  and  respectable  portion  of 
the  Union.  In  the  latter,  he  said  he  should  be  glad  to 
see  Texas  annexed,  if  it  could  be  done  "  without  dis 
honor,  without  war,  with  the  common  consent  of  the 
Union,  and  upon  just  and  fair  terms."  He  added  that 
he  did  not  think  the  slavery  question  ought  to  enter 
into  the  consideration  at  all,  that  slavery  was  destined 
to  become  extinct  in  the  United  States,  and  that  its 
duration  would  neither  be  lengthened  nor  shortened  by 
the  acquisition  of  Texas. 

The  Abolitionists,  however,  could  see  the  question 
only  from  a  single  point  of  view.  They  wanted  Mr. 
Clay  to  say  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  The  Aboli. 
meant  permanent  slavery  extension,  and  that 
he  opposed  it  upon  that  ground.  They  were  Mr- 
not  satisfied  by  Mr.  Clay's  causing  another  letter  to  be 
published,  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  declaring  that 


320  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

his  two  former  letters  were  entirely  consistent  with  each 
other,  and  that  he  held  inflexibly  to  the  principles  of 
the  first  one.  They  even  went  so  far  in  their  extrava 
gant  fanaticism  as  to  represent  to  the  people  that  Mr. 
Clay's  election  would  be  more  favorable  to  annexation 
than  that  of  Mr.  Polk. 

It  is  usually  said  that  Mr.  Clay's  Alabama  letter 
turned  a  sufficient  number  of  votes  to  the  Abolitionist 
The  triumph  candidate,  Mr.  Birney,  to  cause  Mr.  Clay 
to  lose  the  electoral  votes  of  New  York  and 
Michigan,  and  thus  insured  the  election  of  Mr.  Polk, 
and  consequently  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  War 
with  Mexico.  It  is  probably  true  that  it  did  cause  the 
loss  of  New  York  and  Michigan,  but  it  is  possible  that 
it  held  North  Carolina,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee  in 
line.  The  failure  of  Mr.  Clay  is,  therefore,  more  prob 
ably  to  be  ascribed  to  Abolitionist  fanaticism  than  to  his 
own  blundering.  At  any  rate,  this  was  the  view  held 
by  Mr.  Greeley,  a  very  competent  observer.  He  said 
that  "the  triumph  of  annexation  was  secured  by  the 
indirect  aid  of  the  more  intense  partisans  of  abolition/' 

The  result  of  the  election  was  regarded  as  the  plebis 
cite  upon  the  question  of  annexation,  and  also  upon  the 
Tyler's  rec-  Oregon  question,  but  more  especially  upon 
?onS?$£  tne  former.  In  his  message  to  Congress  at 
re8(SutfonioioJ  tne  opening  of  the  session  of  1844-45,  Presi- 
anact.  dent  Tyler  informed  Congress  that,  since 

the  rejection  of  the  Treaty  for  annexation  by  the  Senate, 
Mexico  had  threatened  to  renew  war  against  Texas,  and 
prosecute  the  same  by  barbarous  means  and  methods, 
and  that  he  had  caused  the  Minister  of  the  United 
States  to  Mexico  to  inform  the  Mexican  Government 
that  the  question  of  annexation  was  still  before  the 
American  people,  and  that,  until  their  decision  had  been 
pronounced,  any  serious  invasion  of  Texas  could  not  be 


RE-ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS  321 

regarded  by  them  with  indifference.  He  declared  that, 
in  the  late  general  election,  the  people  had  pronounced 
for  immediate  annexation ;  and  he  recommended  that 
Congress  should  incorporate  the  terms  of  the  late 
agreement  for  annexation  into  the  form  of  an  act  or  a 
joint  resolution,  which  should  be  binding  upon  both 
parties  when  adopted  in  like  manner  by  the  Texan  Con 
gress.  He  also  informed  Congress  that  negotiations 
had  been  opened  with  Great  Britain  relative  to  the  re 
spective  rights  of  the  two  Powers  in,  and  over,  the  Ore 
gon  territory. 

That  part  of  the  message  relating  to  the  question  of 
annexation  was  referred,  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  to  the  committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  The  resoiu- 
and,  on  December  12th,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  of  nexatkm  Tn 
Pennsylvania,  reported  from  that  committee  R  «  p^senta- 
the  draft  of  a  joint  resolution  for  the  annexa-  tives- 
tion  of  Texas.  It  was  simply  the  articles  of  the  agree 
ment  of  April  12th  preceding  put  into  that  form.  The 
principal  points  of  it  were,  the  cession  of  the  territory 
of  Texas  to  the  United  States,  the  transfer  of  the  public 
lands  of  Texas  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
the  pledge  of  the  United  States  to  assume  the  debt  of 
Texas  up  to  ten  millions  of  dollars,  the  guarantee  of 
liberty  and  property  to  the  citizens  of  Texas,  now  to  be 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  the  accordance  of 
Commonwealth  local  government  to  Texas  as  soon  as 
consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  President  and  Mr.  Calhoun  had 
thought  that  the  proper  way  to  annex  a  foreign  state  to 
the  United  States  was  by  means  of  a  treaty,  in  which 
the  foreign  state  should  cede  its  territory  to  the  United 
States ;  and  that  the  matter  of  local  government  for 
the  ceded  territory  and  its  population  would  then  be  a 
question  of  legislation.  We  have  also  seen  that  the  op- 
21 


322  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

ponents  of  the  proposed  Treaty  in  the  Senate  took  the 
ground,  among  other  things,  that  Texas  was  already  a 
state,  seeking  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  "  State  " 
(Commonwealth),  and  that  this  could  be  effected  only 
by  an  act  of  Congress.  But  now  the  opposition  in  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives  to  the  joint  resolution,  ex 
pressed  in  the  very  words  of  the  proposed  Treaty,  de 
clared  that  the  resolution  provided  for  a  cession  of  terri 
tory  by  a  foreign  state  to  the  United  States,  which  ces 
sion  could  be  made  and  accepted  only  through  the  form 
£>f  a  treaty.  The  House  had  never,  however,  committed 
itself  to>  the  view  of  the  Senate,  and  the  friends  of  the 
resolution  wasted  no  time  in  demonstrating  the  incon 
sistency,  but  sought  to  so  amend  the  resolution  as  to 
make  it  an  act  for  the  formation  of  a  new  Common 
wealth,  or,  as  it  is  usually  phrased,  an  act  for  the  ad 
mission  of  a  new  "  State  "  into  this  Union. 

On  January  25th,  1845,  the  House  passed  a  substitute 
for  the  committee's  resolution,  which  substitute  was  a 

Passage  o  f  resolution  for  enabling  the  people  of  Texas 
ad-  fo?Texal  *°  f°rm  a  Commonwealth  constitution  and 
o?Reere?enta-  government,  preparatory  to  admission  into 
fives.  this  Union,  and  prescribing  certain  condi 

tions  for  the  assent  of  Congress  to  the  same. 

When  this  resolution  reached  the  Senate,  it  was  re 
ferred  to  the  committee  of  that  body  for  Foreign  Affairs, 

The  resoiu-  and  on  February  4th,  Mr.  Archer,  the  chair- 
man  of  the  committee,  presented  a  report 
iJ  from  his  committee,  and  a  recommendation 
cies-  that  the  proposition  from  the  House  be  re 

jected.  The  ground  for  this  recommendation,  as  con 
tained  in  the  report,  was  that  the  House  had  undertaken 
to  do  by  an  act  of  Congress  what  could  be  done  only  by 
means  of  a  treaty.  And  this  was  from  that  same  Mr. 
Archer,  who,  on  June  8th  preceding,  had  opposed  the 


RE-ANNEXATION   OF  TEXAS  323 

ratification  of  the  Treaty,  on  the  ground  that  what  was 
proposed  to  be  effected  by  a  treaty  could  be  done  only 
by  means  of  an  act  of  Congress. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  Senate  or  the  coun 
try  would  put  up  with  any  such  inconsistent  trifling. 
The  Senators  were,  however,  much  concerned  in  preserv 
ing  the  treaty-making  power  of  the  Senate,  and  hesitated 
long,  attempting  to  find  the  way  out  of  the  embarrass 
ment,  which  they  had  prepared  for  themselves,  by  their 
attitude,  during  the  preceding  session,  toward  the  pro 
posed  Treaty.  At  last,  on  February  27th,  Mr.  Walker, 
of  Mississippi,  offered  an  apparent  method  of  escape. 
He  moved  to  amend  the  resolution  sent  from  the  House 
by  the  provision  that,  if  the  President  should  The  Senate's 
deem  it  more  advisable  to  negotiate  with  SlSSoS 
Texas  for  her  admission  into  the  Union  than  of  the  House. 
to  submit  the  joint  resolution  as  an  overture  to  her,  he 
might  do  so,  and  then  might  submit  the  agreements, 
which  might  thus  be  made,  either  to  the  Senate  to 
be  approved  of  as  a  treaty,  or  to  both  Houses  to  be 
approved  of  as  an  act.  Everybody  knew,  of  course,  that 
this  was  a  mere  subterfuge  to  save  appearances,  and  that 
the  President  would  immediately  communicate  the  joint 
resolution  to  the  Texan  authorities. 

The  House  of  Representatives  concurred  in  the  Sen 
ate's  amendment,  and  the  President  signed 

"  The  concur- 

the  Act  on  March  1st,  1845.     He  immedi- 


ately  submitted  the  resolution  to  the  Texan  Senate's 
authorities,  and   on   December  29th,   1845,   and  the  pas- 


Texas  was  formally  admitted  as  a  "  State  »  g 
into  this  Union.  8iou- 

There  is  little  question  that  the  President  and  Mr. 
Galhoun  were  correct  as  regards  the  manner  in  which 
a  foreign  state  should  be  annexed  to  the  United  States, 
but  they  can  hardly  be  justly  blamed  or  criticised  for 


324  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

following  the  method  insisted  upon  by  Congress  as  the 
constitutional  form  and  prescript. 

In  his  first  annual  message  President  Polk  informed 
Congress  that  when  he  came  into  office  he  found  that 
The  British  Great   Britain   had   proposed   to   settle  the 
Fnro?eg8idiotS  Oregon   question   by  making  the  divisional 
line    between   the   possessions    of    the   two 
Powers,  west  of  the  Eocky  Mountains,  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  of  latitude  to  the  northeasternmost  branch  of 
the  Columbia  Eiver,  and,  from  this  point,  the  course  of 
the  river  to  the  Pacific  ;  that  his  predecessor  had  re 
fused  this ;  that  he  himself  had,  upon  invitation  from 
the  British  plenipotentiary  to  make  a  proposition,  of 
fered  the  forty-ninth  parallel  from  the  Eocky 
can  proposi-  Mountains  to  the  Pacific,  although  he  be 
lieved  the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  the 
territory  up   to  the  parallel  of  fifty-four  degrees  and 
forty  minutes  to  be  good  ;  and  that  this  proposition  had 
been  rejected  by  the  British  minister. 

The  President  further  declared  that  all  attempts  to 
compromise  with  Great  Britain  had  failed,  and  he  rec- 
Poik'e  rec-  ommended  that  Congress  should  give  the 
SSTnregard  n°tice,  required  by  the  convention  of  joint 
to  the  matter,  occupancy,  f  or  the  termination  of  that  agree 
ment,  as  the  first  step  toward  asserting  the  power  of 
the  Government  over  the  whole  of  Oregon.  He  also 
recommended  the  establishment  of  a  line  of  posts  along 
the  Oregon  route  for  the  protection  of  emigrants  to 
Oregon,  and  the  immediate  extension  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States  Government  over  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  in  Oregon. 

This  was  distinct  enough  and  belligerent  enough. 
The  Abolitionists  and  anti-slavery  Whigs,  who  had 
been  twitting  the  Administration  with  indifference 
about  Oregon,  now  that  Texas  had  been  secured,  could 


RE-ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS  325 

certainly  find  no  fault  with  the  President's  attitude 
toward  the  question.  At  any  rate,  it  was  a  challenge 
to  them  which  could  not  be  ignored. 

Both  Houses  entered  immediately  upon  the  discussion 
of  the  question  of  giving  the  notice.  As  the  debate 
progressed  the  war  fever  became  allayed,  and 


the  conviction  grew  that  the  claim  to  the  upon    the 

T  -      ,*<>,       m  ,>  President's 

line  of  fifty-four  forty  was  extravagant,  recommend  a- 
The  majority,  at  least,  saw  that  the  claim 
by  occupation  and  settlement  was  the  right  basis  for  the 
determination  of  the  dispute,  and  that  this  claim  would 
give  the  United  States  the  territory  only  to  the  line  of 
the  northern  watershed  of  the  Columbia. 

This  line  does,  indeed,  reach  at  points  above  the 
forty-ninth  parallel,  but  the  fact  that  this  parallel  was 
already  the  divisional  line  between  the  possessions  of  the 
two  Powers  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Eockies,  and 
that  the  United  States  had  already  proposed  to  Great 
Britain  the  continuation  of  this  line  to  the  Pacific,  pro 
duced  the  general  feeling  that  the  United  States  should 
be  satisfied  with  the  forty-ninth  parallel  as  the  north 
ern  boundary  of  Oregon,  rather  than  risk  war  for  the 
more  northern  line.  Still,  the  opponents  of  the  Ad 
ministration  had  been  so  quick  to  charge  the  Presi 
dent  with  indifference  to  the  acquisition  of  territory, 
upon  which  non-slaveholding  Commonwealths  would  be 
established,  that  they  were  now  fairly  ashamed  to  lag 
behind  him. 

Owing  to  the  course  taken  by  the  Senate,  Congress 
did  not,  however,  cgme  to  any  conclusion  upon  the  rec 
ommendation  of  the  President  until  April  The  conclu. 
23rd,  1846,  and  then,  in  the  resolution  finally 
passed,  it  almost  emasculated  the  President's 
proposition.  It  empowered  the  President  to  give  the 
notice,  but  explained  that  the  purpose  of  the  same  was 


326  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

to  direct  the  attention  of  the  two  Governments  toward 
the  adoption  of  more  earnest  measures  for  the  amicable 
settlement  of  the  question,  and  it  threw  upon  the  Presi 
dent  the  responsibility  as  to  the  time  of  giving  the  notice, 
by  placing  that  matter  entirely  within  his  discretion. 

The  President  had  already  reopened  negotiations  with 
Great  Britain  upon  the  subject,  and,  on  June  10th,  he 
The  Presi-  laid  before  the  Senate  a  proposal,  from  the 
uep  osn  ceio°n-  British  Envoy,  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  for 
gress.  the  boundary,  and  asked  the  Senate  to  ad 

vise  him  as  to  whether  he  should  close  with  the  offer. 
It  was  not  customary  to  consult  the  Senate  at  this  point 
of  the  negotiations,  but  there  was  precedent  for  it,  and 
the  letter  of  the  Constitution  appears  to  warrant  it,  and 
the  President  was  determined  to  retort  upon  the  Senate, 
for  its  action  in  the  matter  of  the  notice,  by  throwing 
the  responsibility  upon  that  body  of  sacrificing  the  claims 
of  the  United  States  to  territory  above  the  forty-ninth 
parallel.  He  plainly  informed  the  Senate  that  he  would 
reject  the  offer  unless  advised  by  it  to  accept. 

The  Senate  was  fairly  caught  in  its  own  net,  and  had 
the  good  sense  to  refrain  from  a  resistance  which  would 
The  Oregon  have  been  only  an  undignified  floundering  in 
Treaty.  meshes  prepared  by  itself.  On  the  12th,  the 

Senate  advised  the  President  to  accept  the  British  over 
ture.  On  the  15th,  the  President  signed  the  treaty,  and, 
on  the  18th,  the  Senate  ratified  it  by  a  large  majority. 

Not  many  realized,  at  the  moment,  that  the  extension 
of  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  to  the  Pacific 
above  the  forty-second  parallel  of  north  latitude  would 
require  the  like  extension  to  the  south  of  it.  Once 
across  the  Rockies  it  was  inevitable  that  the  natural 
boundary  in  the  southwest,  as  well  as  in  the  northwest, 
should  be  ultimately  attained.  It  came  sooner  than  any 
body  expected. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO 

Slidell's  Mission  to  Mexico — The  Failure  of  the  Mission— The  Con 
centration  of  the  Mexican  Forces  at  Matamoras — The  United 
States  Forces  Ordered  to  the  Rio  Grande — Hostilities  Opened 

—  The  Battles  of  Palo  Alto  and  Resaca  de  la  Palma  —  The  At 
titude  of  Congress  toward  the  War  — Congressional  Approval  of 
the  War  —  The  Occupation  of  New  Mexico  and  Upper  Cali 
fornia,  and  the  Advance  into  Mexico— California's  Importance 

—  The  Battle  of  Buena  Vista  —  Vera  Cruz  and  Cerro  Gordo  — 
Contreras,  San  Antonio,   and  Cherubusco — The  Plan   for  a 
Cession  of  Territory  from  Mexico — The  Wilmot  Proviso — The 
Fate  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in  the  Senate — The  Proviso  Again 
Voted  by  the  House  of  Representatives— The  Upham  Amend 
ment  in  the  Senate— The  Amendment  Defeated  by  the  Efforts 
of  Mr.  Cass— The  Wilmot  Proviso  Dropped  in  the  House— The 
Mission  of  Mr.  Trist— Rejection  of  Mr   Trist's  Propositions  by 
the  Mexicans  —  Negotiations  Broken   off  —  Molino  del   Rey, 
Chapultepec,  Mexico— The  Recall  of  Mr.  Trist,  and  the  Treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo — Ratification  of  the  Treaty. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  Mexican  Government  had  an 
nounced  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that 
the  annexation  of  Texas  would  be  regarded  by  Mexico  as 
a  casus  belli.  Consequently,  as  soon  as  the  matter  was 
concluded,  the  Mexican  Envoy  left  Washington,  and 
all  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two  Powers  were 
suspended.  Some  six  months  later,  Presi-  siideii's  mis- 
dent  Polk  made  overtures  for  the  resump-  siontoMexico. 
tion  of  these  relations,  and,  upon  meeting  a  somewhat 
friendly  response,  commissioned  Mr.  John  Slidell,  of 
Louisiana,  to  go  to  Mexico  and  negotiate  a  treaty,  which 
should  settle  all  the  differences  between  the  two  Powers. 


328  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Mr.  Slidell  arrived  at  Vera  Cruz  on  November  30th, 
1845,  and  found  that  President  Herrera's  Administra 
tion  was  afraid  to  receive  him,  because  the  military  or 
war  party  in  Mexico,  led  by  General  Paredes,  was  greatly 
excited  by  the  attitude  of  the  Administration  toward 
the  United  States,  and  threatened  revolution.  The 
Mexican  Government  actually  refused  audience  to  Mr. 
Slidell,  on  December  21st. 

Before  the  end  of  the  year,  President  Herrera  gave  way 

to  General  Paredes,  who  assumed  the  presidency  of  the 

The  failure  Republic,  and,  under  direction  from  President 

ofthemission.   polk^  Mr    glidell  announced  himself  to  the 

new  Administration.     This  was  March  1st,  1846.     On 
the  12th,  he  received  the  refusal  of  the  Paredes  Govern 
ment  to  give  him  audience,  and  immediately  left  Mexico. 
During  the   summer  of   1845,  the  Mexican  Govern 
ment  had  begun  to  collect  troops  and  munitions  of  war 
at   Matamoras,   on   the  south  bank   of  the 

The  concen-    _. .       ~  . . 

tration  of  the  Rio  Grande  near  its  mouth.      The  purpose 
forces  at  Mata1-  of  all  this  was  without  question  an  expedi 
tion  across  the  Rio  Grande,  and  into  the  re 
gion  north  of  it. 

By  an  act  of  the  Texan  Congress,  of  December  19th, 
1836,  the  Rio  Grande  was  designated  as  the  southwest 
ern  boundary  of  Texas.  The  United  States  took  Texas 
with  this  boundary,  reserving  in  the  resolution  of  an 
nexation  the  right  of  adjusting  the  Texan  boundaries 
with  foreign  states.  This  meant,  of  course,  that  the 
United  States  might  change  the  boundary  which  Texas 
had  given  herself,  as  the  result  of  her  successful  rebel 
lion,  her  revolution,  against  Mexico,  by  an  agreement 
with  Mexico,  in  so  far  as  Texas  was  concerned.  It  fur 
ther  meant  that  any  such  change  must  be  made  either 
by  an  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  or  by  a 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico.  Until, 


THE   WAK   WITH    MEXICO  329 

however,  this  adjustment  should  take  place,  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  defend 
the  boundary  with  which  Texas  came  into  the  Union. 
Moreover,,  Congress  had  passed  an  act,  on  December 
31st,  1845,  in  which  Corpus  Christi,  a  town  situated  on 
the  south  side  of  the  river  Nueces,  was  made  an  United 
States  port  of  delivery.  The  town  was,  also,  the  head 
quarters  of  the  United  States  army  in  Texas,  and  had 
been  so  from  the  period  of  annexation. 

When  now  the  Mexican  Government  refused  to  re 
ceive  Mr.  Slidell,  and  continued  to  increase  the  forces 
at  Matamoras,  President  Polk  felt  it  to  be  his  The  United 
duty  to  defend  the  line  of  the  Eio  Grande,  ordered  S'fS 
On  January  13th,  he  ordered  General  Tay-  Wo  Grande, 
lor,  then  in  command  at  Corpus  Christi,  to  advance  to 
the  northern  bank  of  the  Eio  Grande.  The  General, 
with  his  little  army  of  about  2,000  men,  arrived  upon 
the  Kio  Grande,  at  a  point  opposite  Matamoras,  on 
March  28th,  and  began  fortifying  his  position. 

On  April  12th,  the  Mexican  commander,  General 
Ampudia,  demanded  the  withdrawal  of  Taylor's  forces 
within  twenty-four  hours,  and  their  retirement  across 
the  Nueces,  under  threat  of  the  appeal  to  arms.  Tay 
lor  paid  no  attention  to  the  demand,  and,  on  Hostilities 
the  24th,  he  received  notice  from  General  °Pened- 
Arista,  the  successor  of  Ampudia,  that  hostilities  were 
opened. 

On  the  same  day,  a  reconnoitring  party  of  United 
States  dragoons  encountered  a  large  detachment  of 
Mexican  soldiers,  who  had  just  crossed  the  river  far 
ther  up,  and  were  all  killed  or  captured.  General 
Taylor  moved  out  from  Fort  Brown,  opposite  Mata 
moras,  in  order  to  cover  his  base  of  supplies  at  Point 
Isabel,. and,  having  accomplished  this,  faced  about  again 
to  relieve  Fort  Brown  against  assault  from  Matamoras. 


330  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

While  executing  this  movement  he  found  himself,  on 

May  8th,,  face  to  face  with  a  Mexican  army  numbering 

three  times  as  many  men  as  his  own.     Nevertheless,  he 

The  battles  inflicted  a  crushing  defeat  upon  the  Mexi- 

and^Re^ca    Cans  in   this  battle  °f   Pal°   Alt°>  and   stmck 

deiaPaima.  them  again  the  next  day  at  Resaca  de  la 
Palma,  routing  them  completely,  and  driving  the  rem 
nants  of  this  once  apparently  formidable  force  across 
the  Rio  Grande. 

As  soon  as  the  news  of  these  events  reached  Washing 
ton,  the  President  informed  Congress  of  them,  claimed 
that  war  existed  by  the  act  of  Mexican  invasion,  and 
asked  for  the  means  for  its  successful  prosecution. 

From  the  reception  of  this  message  to  the  end  of 
the  War,  the  Whigs  in  both  Houses  condemned  the 
The  attitude  War,  but  only  a  few  of  them  voted  against 
£>owardgr?he  furnishing  the  means  for  its  prosecution. 
War-  Strangely  enough,  they  were  aided  by  Mr. 

Calhoun,  who  opposed  the  whole  war  policy  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end.  He  even  opposed  recognizing 
the  existence  of  Avar.  He  was  getting  old  and  more 
peaceable  in  disposition,  and  also  had  probably  seen,  with 
Mr.  Thompson,  that  any  further  slavery  extension  to 
ward  the  Southwest  meant  the  extinction  of  slavery  in 
the  border  Commonwealths,  and  the  greater  exposure  of 
the  planting  section  to  the  influences  of  Abolition. 
Some  of  the  Whigs  claimed  that  if  war  existed  at  all, 
it  was  offensive  war,  and  that  the  President  had  ex 
ceeded  his  constitutional  powers  in  bringing  it  on,  and 
should  be  impeached  for  so  doing. 

The  truth  of  this  proposition  depended,  of  course, 
upon  the  recognition  by  the  United  States  of  Mexico's 
title  to  the  territory  between  the  Rio  Grande  and  the 
Nueces,  or,  at  least,  upon  the  recognition  of  it  as  a  free 
zone,  a  proposition  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  Acts 


THE   WAR   WITH   MEXICO  331 

of  Congress  annexing  Texas,  and  extending  the  revenue 
laws  of  the  United  States  over  this  very  district.  The 
fact  is,  it  was  a  defensive  war  at  the  outset,  and  if  the 
Mexicans  were  excited  to  their  move  across  the  Rio 
Grande  hy  the  appearance  of  United  States  troops  on 
the  northern  bank,  they  had  only  to  thank  themselves 
for  bringing  them  there  by  previously  massing  their 
own  troops  on  the  south  bank. 

Of  course  the  Abolitionists  could  see  nothing  in  the 
matter  but  a  wicked  scheme  for  the  extension  of  slavery. 
Their  attitude  was,  however,  too  narrow  and  bigoted  to 
win  much  attention.  And,  as  the  debate  on  the  Presi 
dent's  message  progressed,  it  became  manifest  that  all 
the  elements  of  the  opposition  were  getting  deeper  and 
deeper  into  the  quicksands.  The  bill  for  recognizing 
the  existence  of  war,  and  authorizing  the  Congres. 
President  to  call  for  50,000  volunteers,  and  sionaUpprov- 
for  appropriating  $10,000,000  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  the  compaign,  was  passed  by  an  overwhelm 
ing  majority,  in  both  Houses,  on  May  llth  and  12th, 
and  approved  by  the  President  on  the  13th. 

The  President  was  now,  certainly,  authorized  to  carry 
the  War  into  Mexico,  if,  indeed,  he  needed  Congressional 
authority,  at  all,  after  the  war  had  been  once  begun  as 
defensive  war.  At  any  rate,  General  Taylor's  occupa 
tion  of  Matamoras  did  not  occur  until  May  18th,  six 
days  after  Congress  had  recognized  war. 

The  President  now  ordered  General  Kearny  to  occupy 
New  Mexico,  Commodores  Sloat  and  Stock- 
ton  to  make  sure  of  Upper  California,  and 
General  Taylor  to  prosecute  the  war  upon 
Mexican  soil.     Kearny,  Sloat,  and  Stockton  advance  into 
quickly  accomplished  the  work  assigned  them, 
and  without  much  difficulty,  and  Taylor  advanced,  in 
September,  from  Matamoras  upon  Monterey.     After  a 


332  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

three  days'  siege,,  lie  captured  the  place,,  on  the  24th, 
and  established  winter-quarters  within  its  walls. 

At  the  same  time,  General  Kearny  sent  Colonel  Doni- 
phan  with  a  detachment  of  his  army  to  Monterey,  by  way 
of  Chihuahua,  and  marched  himself  with  another  de 
tachment  to  San  Diego  in  California.  Doniphan's  capt 
ure  of  Chihuahua  brought  the  entire  southern  valley  of 
the  upper  Eio  Grande  under  the  military  control  of  the 
United  States,  and  Kearny's  successful  march  into  Cali 
fornia  secured  that  territory  against  all  eventualities. 

The  occupation  of  California  was  the  matter  of  most 
vital  importance  to  the  United  States.  It  is  the  way  to 

California's  Asia.  Its  government  by  Mexico  was  a  farce, 
importance.  j^  woui(j  }iave  been  purchased  or  seized  by 
Great  Britain,  or  some  other  commercial  Power,  if  the 
United  States  had  not  taken  possession  of  it.  Nothing 
was  known  of  its  vast  mineral  wealth  at  the  time. 
Mere  greed,  therefore,  did  not  prompt  the  movement. 
It  was  a  great  and  correct  stroke  of  public  policy,  sup 
ported  by  geographical,  commercial,  and  political  reasons. 

Still  Mexico  would  not  yield,  and  the  Administration 
at  Washington  now  determined  to  carry  the  war  into  the 
very  vitals  of  the  Mexican  state.  The  campaign  against 
the  Mexican  capital,  by  way  of  Vera  Cruz,  was  now  re 
solved  on,  and  General  Scott  was  directed  to  execute  it. 

Santa  Anna,  who  had  now  arrived  in  Mexico  again 
from  Cuba,  and  had  again  taken  up  the  reins  of  govern 
ment,  thought  that  the  army  of  General  Scott  would  be 
unable  to  capture  Vera  Cruz  without  a  long  and  pain 
ful  siege,  and  planned  to  advance  rapidly  from  the 
capital  with  the  main  body  of  his  army  to  the  north, 
crush  Taylor,  and  return  to  the  capital  before  Scott 
could  pass  Vera  Cruz. 

On  February  20th,  1847,  General  Taylor,  whose  ad 
vance  was  now  some  hundred  miles  to  the  southwest  of 


THE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO  333 

Monterey,  suddenly  discovered  a  large  Mexican  force  in 
front  of  him.  It  was  Santa  Anna,  with  about  twenty 
thousand  of  his  best  troops.  Taylor  ordered  ^^  ^^^ 
his  little  army  of  about  five  thousand  men  to  of  Buena 
retire  for  a  few  miles,  and  take  position  on 
the  rising  ground  at  Buena  Vista.  The  Mexicans  soon 
caught  up,  and  on  the  23rd,  Santa  Anna  demanded  un 
conditional  surrender.  Taylor  promptly  declined,  and 
the  battle  immediately  opened.  Both  sides  knew  the 
serious  character  of  the  wager.  California,  New  Mexico, 
and,  perhaps,  a  large  part  of  Texas  were  staked  upon  the 
issue.  Before  the  day  closed,  Taylor  and  his  little  army 
had  won  a  complete  victory,  and  the  Mexicans  were  in 
full  retreat,  after  the  loss  of  some  two  thousand  men. 
Taylor  lost  about  eight  hundred  men.  With  this  the 
campaign  in  the  north  was  closed,  and  attention  turned 
almost  exclusively  to  the  operations  of  General  Scott. 

On  March  9th,  General  Scott  effected  a  landing  near 
Vera  Cruz,  and  on  the  29th  captured  that 
city.     He   immediately  took  up  his  line  of  and°rcerro 
march  for  the  city  of  Mexico. 

The  first  great  difficulty  which  he  was  compelled  to  en 
counter  was,  naturally,  the  forcing  of  the  mountain  pass 
of  Cerro  Gordo,  through  which  the  national  road  from 
Vera  Cruz  to  the  city  of  Mexico  led.  Santa  Anna  had 
gathered  here  an  army  of  some  fifteen  thousand  men, 
and  had  thrown  up  strong  earthworks  commanding  the 
defile.  On  the  morning  of  April  18th,  General  Scott 
stormed  the  heights  of  Cerro  Gordo,  and  in  a  sanguinary 
battle  routed  the  Mexicans  completely.  Some  three 
thousand  Mexicans  were  captured,  with  five  thousand 
muskets  and  forty-three  pieces  of  artillery.  Scott's  loss 
was  not  over  four  hundred  men.  Jalapa,  Perote,  and 
Puebla  fell  into  his  hands  as  the  immediate  consequences 
of  this  victory. 


334  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

General  Scott  rested  his  army  for  two  months  at 
Puebla,  and  in  the  beginning  of  August  resumed  his 
march  upon  the  capital,  with  an  army  of  about  eleven 
thousand  men.  On  the  18th,  he  arrived  within  ten 
miles  of  the  city,  and  found  himself  confronted  by  an 
army  of  nearly  thirty  thousand  men,  commanded  by 
President  Santa  Anna  himself. 

On  the  morning  of  the  19th,  the  struggle  began,  and 
lasted  through  the  20th.  Three  distinct  battles  were 
contreras,  fought — Coiitreras,  San  Antonio,  and  Cheru- 
a  nnd  A  ctSra-  busc°-  Tne  Mexicans  outnumbered  Scott's 
busco.  army  three  to  one,  and  fought  desperately 

to  save  their  capital,  but  all  to  no  avail.  After  killing, 
wounding,  and  capturing  between  seven  and  eight  thou 
sand  Mexicans,  General  Scott  dispersed  the  remainder 
of  their  army  and  opened  his  way  into  the  city.  The 
General  was  willing,  however,  to  save  the  proud  Mexi 
cans  from  the  humiliation  of  seeing  their  capital  in  the 
hands  of  the  invader,  and  agreed  to  an  armistice  for  the 
purpose  of  negotiating  a  peace. 

On  August  8th,  1846,  President  Polk  had  asked  of  Con 
gress  that  two  millions  of  dollars  be  placed  at  his  disposal 
The  plan  for  for  use  in  negotiating  a  treaty  of  peace  with 
territory  "rom  Mexico.  It  was  quite  evident  from  this  that 
the  President  was  going  to  demand  a  large  ces 
sion  of  territory  from  Mexico.  Mexico  had  not  yet  paid 
any  of  the  claims  awarded  by  the  Claims  Commission  of 
1840  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  There  were 
also  millions  of  dollars  of  claims  unadjudged.  And  then 
there  was  the  war  indemnity,  which  would  undoubtedly 
be  required.  Two  millions  of  dollars,  in  addition  to  all 
this,  to  be  paid  by  the  victorious  party  for  peace,  could 
mean  nothing  less,  or  other,  than  a  vast  territorial  ces 
sion  from  the  vanquished.  It  was  evident  to  all  that 
California  and  New  Mexico,  already  in  the  possession  of 


THE  WAR   WITH   MEXICO  335 

the  United  States,  must  constitute  the  sacrifice  which 
Mexico  must  make. 

Mr.  McKay,  of  North  Carolina,  immediately  intro 
duced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  a  bill  making 
the  appropriation  asked  by  the  President.  Thewnmot 
Discussion  upon  the  bill  was  scarcely  under  proyiBO- 
way,  when  a  Northern  Democrat,  a  supporter  of  the  War 
and  of  the  policy  of  territorial  extension,  Mr.  David 
Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by 
inserting  in  it  the  condition  that  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  should  exist  in  any  territory  ac 
quired  by  treaty  from  Mexico.  The  House  passed  the 
bill,  with  the  Wilmot  proviso,  as  it  was  termed,  on  the 
day  of  its  introduction,  August  8th.  Territorial  ex 
tension,  but  not  slavery  extension,  was  its  principle, 
and  therefore  the  South  voted  almost  solidly  against 
it.  The  bill  appeared  in  the  Senate  on  the  10th,  which 
was  the  last  day  of  the  session,  and  was  still  under  dis 
cussion  when  the  hour  for  the  adjournment  The  fate  of 
of  the  body  sine  die  arrived.  It  was  thought 
by  some  competent  judges  that  the  Senate 
would  have  passed  the  bill,  if  it  had  t  then  come  to  a 
vote,  and  would  have  thus  settled,  at  the  outset,  the 
question  of  slavery  extension  ;  but  this  is  at  least  doubt 
ful.  At  the  moment,  the  South  had  four  more  votes  in 
the  Senate  than  the  North,  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
Whig  Senators  from  the  South  would  have  united  with 
their  Democratic  brethren  upon  this  question. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  session  of  1846-47,  the  Presi 
dent  again  preferred  his  request  for  an  ap- 

...        Jf      ,,  The  Proviso 

propnation  for  the  same  purpose,  and  during  again  voted  by 


the  month  of  January,  1847,  bills  were  intro-  ReVnt  a- 
duced   into   the  two  Houses,    providing  an  tlves- 
appropriation  of  three  millions  of  dollars  for  the  Presi 
dent's  use  in  his  negotiations  with  Mexico. 


336  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

When  the  House  took  up  its  bill  for  consideration, 
on  February  1st,  Mr.  Wilmot  immediately  asked  per 
mission  to  move  the  attachment  of  his  proviso  to  the 
appropriation,  and  made  a  strong  argument  in  favor 
of  the  same.  On  the  15th,  the  proviso  was  again 
voted,  but  by  a  reduced  majority.  The  members  from 
the  South  voted,  this  time,  solidly  against  it.  A  few 
Northern  Democrats  voted  with  them ;  among  these  was 
Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

On  March  1st,  Senator  Upham,  of  Vermont,  intro 
duced  an  amendment  to  the  Senate  bill,  of  the  same 
TheU  ham  ^enor  as  the  Wilmot  proviso  in  the  House, 
amendment m  and  urged  its  adoption  in  a  strong  and  con- 

the  Senate.  .       .     &  j.         TJ.  11  •* 

vincmg  argument.  It  really  seemed  as  if 
the  victory  for  Free-soil  in  the  new  acquisitions,  what 
ever  they  might  be,  was  about  to  be  won,  when,  to  the 
surprise  of  at  least  a  considerable  number  of  the  Sena 
tors,  General  Cass,  of  Michigan,  who  was  thought  to 
have  indicated  his  favor  to  the  Wilmot  proviso  at  the 
last  session,  made  a  determined  effort  against  Mr.  Up- 
ham's  motion.  Mr.  Cass  declared  the  measure  prema 
ture,  and  contended  that  its  only  effect,  if  passed,  at 

The  amend-  the  moment  would  be  to  weaken  the  Govern - 
bye"heeeffort8  ment  ^J  internal  dissensions  upon  the  slav- 
ofMr.  caes.  erv  question,  and  consequently  encourage 
the  Mexicans  to  continue  the  War.  He  urged  the  Sen 
ators  to  stand  solidly  together  for  the  vigorous  prose 
cution  of  the  War  to  its  successful  close,  and  then,  af 
ter  the  peace,  take  up  the  internal  questions  arising  out 

The  wn-  of  the  settlement.  The  Senate  rejected  Mr. 
S-oppedTJthe  Upham's  amendment,  passed  the  bill  without 
House-  it,  and,  on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  the 

House  accepted  the  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate.  Mr. 
Cass's  idea  that  the  anti-slavery  proviso  would  embarrass 
the  President  in  his  negotiations  with  Mexico,  and  would 


THE   WAR   WITH   MEXICO  337 

encourage  the  Mexicans  to  continue  the  War  seems  to 
have  convinced  the  House  as  well  as  the  Senate. 

The  President  had  now  the  tacit  consent  of  Congress 
to  the  acquisition  of  California  and  New  Mexico,  and 
the  means  to  pay  for  them  hand.  And  the  greater 
military  successes  of  General  Scott  from  Yera  Cruz  to 
the  Mexican  capital  prepared  the  way  for  the  President 
to  make  use  of  his  power. 

The  President  sent  Mr.  N.  P.  Trist,  of  Virginia,  to 
the  head-quarters  of  General  Scott  with  the  draft  of  a 
treaty  to  be  offered  the  Mexican  Government.  T^  mission 
It  designated  the  Rio  Grande  from  the  Gulf  o£Mr-  TriBt 
to  the  point  where  the  River  touched  the  line  of  New 
Mexico  as  the  boundary  between  Mexico  and  the  United 
States  from  the  Gulf  to  that  point,  and  provided  for 
the  cession  of  New  Mexico  and  the  Californias  to  the 
United  States,  and  the  privilege  of  the  right  of  way 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec.  Mr.  Trist  was 
instructed,  however,  that  he  might  withdraw  the  de 
mands  for  Lower  California  and  for  the  right  of  way 
across  the  Isthmus,  and  might  also  offer  a  payment  of 
money,  if  he  should  find  these  things  necessary. 

After  the  armistice  of  August  24th,  the  Mexican 
Government  sent  commissioners  to  meet  Mr.  Trist. 
They  promptly  rejected  Mr.  Trist's  proposi- 

J   *  L     J       •  Rejection  of 

tions,  and  offered,  as  their  ultimatum,  the  Mr.  Trist  > 
Nueces  boundary^  the  cession  of  Upper  Cali-  Ey  0tLWMeS- 
fornia  above  the  thirty-seventh  parallel  of 
latitude  for  a  pecuniary  consideration,  the  payment  by 
the  United  States  of  an  indemnity  for  private  injuries 
inflicted  by  the  United  States  troops  during  the  invasion, 
etc.  Nothing,  moreover,  was  said  in  their  offer  con 
cerning  the  claims  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
against  Mexico. 

The  proposals  were  so  far  apart,  and  the  Mexicans 
22 


338  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

bore  themselves  with  so  much  arrogance,  that  the  nego 

tiations  were  broken  off,  the  armistice  was  terminated, 

and  General  Scott  resumed  military  opera- 

Negotiations    ,.  r\       c*      ±       -i          0^1       i        •    a-   /  i 

broken  off.   tions.      On  September   8th,  he  inflicted  a 
key,  1chai>ui-  crushing  defeat  upon  the  Mexicans  at  Molino 


tepee,  Mexico.    ^  Rey        Qn   the  13t^  he  stormed   success. 

fully  the  heights  of  Chapultepec  and  two  gates  of  the 
city.  And  on  the  14th,  he  captured  the  city. 

President  Polk  now  recalled  Mr.  Trist,  and  informed 
Congress  of  the  failure  of  the  negotiations,  at  the  same 
time  intimating  that  the  policy  of  the  Administration 
would  be  war  a  outrance.  The  opposition  to  the  Ad 
ministration  in  Congress  declared  that  the  total  dis 
memberment  of  the  Mexican  Republic  was  intended, 
and  raised  their  voices  against  it.  The  outcry  helped 
the  Administration,  in  that  it  called  the  attention  of 
the  Mexicans  to  the  great  danger  they  were  incurring  in 
not  accepting  the  terms  of  peace  which  had  been  offered 
them. 

Mr.   Trist  did  not,  however,  return  to  the   United 

States,  but  waited  in  and  around  the  City  of  Mexico  for 

„  something  to  turn  up.     It  seems  that  he  did 

The  recall  of  .          ,r     •»,      . 

Mr.  Trist,  and  not  even  acquaint  the  Mexican  Government 
Guadaiupe  with  the  fact  of  his  recall.  In  the  latter  part 
of  January,  1848,  the  Mexican  commissioners 
approached  him,  and,  on  February  2nd,  they  signed 
with  him,  at  Guadaiupe  Hidalgo,  a  treaty  of  peace, 
which  provided  for  the  Rio  Grande  boundary  between 
the  two  Powers,  the  cession  of  New  Mexico  and  Upper 
California  to  the  United  States,  the  payment  of  $15,- 
000,000  by  the  United  States  to  Mexico,  and  the  assump 
tion  by  the  United  States  of  all  the  obligations  of  Mexico 
to  citizens  of  the  United  States  incurred  before  the  con 
clusion  of  the  Treaty. 

Mr.  Trist  immediately  took  the  proposed  Treaty  to 


THE   WAR   WITH   MEXICO  339 

Washington,  and  President  Polk  immediately  laid  it 
before  the  Senate  for  ratification.  After  three  weeks  of 
determined  opposition  by  Senators  from  both  parties  and 
both  sections,  ratification  was  voted  by  the  Ratification 
requisite  two  -  thirds  majority,  on  March  c 
16th,  1848.  With  this  the  whole  political  energy  of  the 
nation  was  turned  away  from  the  international  question 
to  the  internal  questions  involved  in  the  organization  of 
the  vast  territorial  empire  upon  the  Pacific,  which  had 
now  been  added  to  the  United  States  by  the  Treaties 
with  Great  Britain  and  Mexico. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  ORGANIZATION   OF  OREGON  TERRITORY  AND  THE 
COMPROMISE   OF   1850 

Bills  for  Oregon  Territory— Thirty-six  Degrees  and  Thirty  Minutes 
to  the  Pacific— Mr.  Rhett  on  the  Rights  of  the  South  in  the 
Territories— The  Third  Oregon  Bill— The  Party  Platforms  of 
1848— The  President  Urges  the  Organization  of  California  and 
New  Mexico — Mr.  Clayton's  Attempt  at  Compromise — Passage 
of  the  Oregon  Bill  by  Congress— The  Free-soil  Party  in  1848— 
The  President's  Approval  of  the  Oregon  Bill — Gold  and  Silver 
in  California— The  Election  of  Taylor,  and  the  Disaffection  of 
the  Northern  Democrats — Plans  for  the  Organization  of  Cali 
fornia  and  New  Mexico — The  House  Bill  for  the  Territorial 
Organization  of  Upper  California — Mr.  Walker's  Scheme  in  the 
House — Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Berrien  011  the  Status  of  Slavery 
in  the  Territory  Acquired  from  Mexico — Emigration  to  Califor 
nia — President  Taylor's  Scheme — The  Convention  at  Monterey 

—  The   Policy   of  the   Administration  —  The   Policy   of    the 
Slavery  Extensiouists— The  Elements  of  the  Slavery  Question 
in   Congress  —  Mr.  Clay's   Plan   of  Compromise  —  Objections 
to   Mr.  Clay's   Plan  —  California's  Application   for  Admission 
— Mr.  Calhoun's  Last  Speech— Mr.  Webster's  March  7th  Speech 

—  Mr.  Bell's  Proposition  —  The  Death  of  Mr.  Calhoun  —  Mr. 
Foote's  Motion  and  the  Committee  of  Thirteen — The  Report 
and  Recommendations  of  the  Committee — The  Debate  Upon 
the  Bills  Proposed  by  the  Committee,  and  the  Failure  to  Pass 
Them— The  Temper  of  the  Country— The  Succession  of  Fill- 
more  and  His  Message  of  August  6th — The  Passage  of  Bills, 
Separately,  Covering  All  Questions  Contained   in  Mr.  Clay's 
Compromise  Measures. 

Ox  August  6th,  1846,  Mr.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  chair 
man  of  the  committee  on  Territories,  asked  the  House 


THE   ORGANIZATION    OF   OREGON   TERRITORY      341 

of  Kepresentatives  to  consider  a  bill  prepared  by  that 
committee  for  the  organization  of  Oregon  as  a  Terri 
tory.  The  House  consented,  and  immedi- 

,    i  -i-  .  -r     i-n    Ar  First  bill  for 

ately  upon  the  second  reading  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Oregon  Tem- 
Thompson,  of  Pennsylvania,  a  Democrat  and  tory' 
friend  of  the  Administration,  moved  to  amend  the  bill 
by  the  provision  "  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  shall  ever  exist  in  said  Territory,  except  for 
crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con 
victed."  The  amendment  was  adopted  by  a  very  large 
majority,  and  the  bill,  as  thus  amended,  was  passed.  On 
the  following  day,  the  bill  was  presented  in  the  Senate, 
and  referred  by  that  body  to  its  Judiciary  committee, 
which  committee  did  not  report  the  bill  during  the  ses 
sion. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  next  session,  Mr.  Douglas  in 
troduced  a  new  bill  for  the  same  purpose.  This  bill 
virtually  contained  the  Thompson  amend-  The  second 
ment  in  the  proviso  that  all  the  restrictions  bm- 
in  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  in  regard  to  the  Northwest 
Territory,  should  apply  to  Oregon. 

On  January  12th,  1847,  Mr.  Burt,  of  South  Carolina, 
moved  to  insert  before  this  proviso  the  words,  "  inas 
much  as  the  whole  of  the  said  Territory  lies  Thirty-six 
north  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  min-  aS^innteB 
utes  north  latitude,  known  as  the  line  of  to  the  Pacific, 
the  Missouri  Compromise."  The  purpose  of  this  was,  of 
course,  to  commit  Congress  and  the  North  to  that  line 
to  the  Pacific.  This  was  so  evident  that  the  Northern 
members  voted  the  amendment  down.  We  can,  how 
ever,  hardly  charge  the  invention  of  this  idea  to  the 
South  Carolinian.  On  August  8th  preceding,  Mr. 
Wick,  of  Indiana,  had  moved  to  amend  the  Wilmot 
proviso,  so  as  to  make  it  read,  that  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  should  exist,  in  any  territory  ac- 


342  THE   MIDLE   PERIOD 


quired  from  Mexico  nov$tf)f  thirty-six  degrees  and  thir 
ty  minutes. 

It  was  during  the  debate  on  this  bill,  just  after  Mr. 

Burt's  amendment  had  been  rejected,  that  Mr.  Rhett, 

of  South  Carolina,,  made  his  noted   speech, 

Mr.  Rhett    .          ,  .    ,     ...  .  ,  .   ,     .,       ~       f, 

on  the  rights  in  which  the  new  view,  which  the  South  was 
in  the  Terri-  now  beginning  to  take  upon  the  rights  of  the 

ies*  two  sections  in  the  Territories,  was  first  pro 

nounced.  That  view  was,  briefly  expressed,  that  the 
"  States  "  were  joint  owners  of  the  Territories,  and 
"  co-Sovereigns  "  in  them;  that  the  general  Gov 
ernment  was  only  the  agent  of  the  "States"  therein, 
and  had  only  the  power  "  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all 
needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory, 
or  other  property  of  the  United  States,"  from  which 
power,  the  power  to  determine  in  what  property  should 
consist  within  the  Territories  could  not  be  derived  ;  and 
that  the  "  ingress  of  the  citizen  "  of  any  "  State  "  into 
any  Territory,  "  is  the  ingress  of  his  Sovereign,"  his 
"  State,"  who  is  bound  to  protect  him  in  his  settle 
ment. 

Mr.  Rhett  qualified  this  conclusion  by  saying  that  it 
did  not  mean  that  each  "  State  "  should  set  up  govern 
ment  in  the  Territories  over  its  citizens  immigrating 
into  them,  but  that  it  meant  that  the  citizens  of  each 
"State"  should  have  equal  right  to  enter  the  Territo 
ries  and  settle  and  occupy^  them  with  their  property, 
with  whatever  was  recognized  as  property  by  their  re 
spective  "  States."  Stated  more  clearly,  it  meant  that 
the  general  Government  must  execute  the  laws  of  each 
"  State,"  defining  and  protecting  property,  in  each  Terri 
tory  of  the  Union  —  of  each  "  State  "  from  which  citizens 
had  emigrated  into  the  Territory  concerned  —  and  must 
execute  these  several  "State  "  laws  over  the  immigrants 
from  the  several  "States"  separately. 


THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  OREGON  TERRITORY   343 

In  plain,  blunt  Anglo-Saxon,  it  meant  that  the  gener 
al  Government  must  recognize  and  protect,  as  property, 
in  any  Territory,  anything  which  was  so  recognized  and 
protected  by  any  "  State  "  of  the  Union.  It  meant  the 
establishment  of  slavery  in  every  Territory  of  the  Union. 

This  was  a  new  doctrine  in  1847,  and  it  could  not 
immediately  prevail,  but  its  appearance  is  a  mark  of  the 
progress  which  the  political  system  of  the  United  States 
was  making  toward  confederatism  and  dissolution. 

The  bill  passed  the  House  on  January  16th,  1847,  by  a 
vote  of  nearly  four  to  one,  and  was  immedi-  The  failure 
ately  sent  to  the  Senate.  The  Senate  re-  g[  ^JjJ!1  in 
ferred  it  to  its  Judiciary  committee.  The 
committee  reported  on  it,  and  the  bill  was  laid  on  the 
table,  the  last  day  of  the  session. 

During  the  next  session,  bills  were  introduced  into 
both  Houses  for  organizing  Oregon  as  a  Territory.  On 
January  10th,  1848,  Mr.  Douglas,  who  had  The  third 
been  transferred  from  the  House  to  the  Sen-  Oregon  bin. 
ate,  presented  in  the  Senate  a  bill  for  the  organization 
of  a  Territorial  government  for  Oregon,  which  provided, 
among  other  things,  that  the  laws  which  the  Oregon 
settlers  had  constructed  for  themselves  should,  in  so  far 
as  they  were  compatible  with  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  the  United  States,  remain  in  force  until  the  Territo 
rial  legislature  should  change  them.  These  laws  ex 
cluded  slavery.  Here  was  the  germ  of  "  squatter-sover 
eignty/'  afterward  developed  by  Mr.  Douglas  in  his 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

The  House  bill,  containing  substantially  the  same  pro 
vision  as  the  bill  of  the  preceding  session,  was  intro 
duced  on  February  9th,  1848,  but  this  time  it  met  with 
much  more  opposition,  and  the  discussion  on  it  revealed 
the  fact  that  Mr.  Rhett's  doctrine  had,  within  the  year, 
made  many  converts. 


344  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  bills  were  dragging  along  slowly  in  both  Houses,, 
when,  on  May  29th,  the  President  sent  a  special  mes- 

The  Presi-  sage  to  Congress  urging  immediate  action 
action  ongthe  on  the  subject.  This  gave  some  impetus  to 
blll-  the  proceedings  in  both  Houses. 

On  May  21st,  Mr.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  moved  to 
amend  the  Senate  bill  by  a  provision  excluding  slavery, 

Mr.  Bale's  an(l  insisted  upon  the  power  and  the  duty 
amendment.  Q£  congress  to  settle  the  question  of  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  and  to  settle  it  in  the  interest  of  free 
dom.  The  debate  in  the  Senate  upon  Mr.  Hale's  motion 
was  long  and  acrimonious,  during  which  the  Southern 
ers  advanced  to  more  and  more  radical  ground,  until  Mr. 
Calhoun  and  his  disciple,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis,  expressed 
the  same  constitutional  doctrine  upon  the  subject  of  the 
extension  of  slavery  to  the  Territories  as  Mr.  Rhett  had 
done,  which  was,  in  brief,  that  neither  Congress  nor  the 
inhabitants  of  a  Territory  had  any  constitutional  power 
to  abolish  slavery  in,  or  exclude  it  from,  a  Territory. 
On  June  23rd,  Mr.  Davis  moved  to  amend  the  Oregon 

Mr.  Davis's  bill  by  the  provision  that  nothing  in  the  bill 
amendment,  g^ia  ^e  so  construed  as  to  authorize  the 
prohibition  of  domestic  slavery  in  said  Territory  while 
it  remained  in  the  condition  of  a  Territory.  The  direct 
contradiction  between  the  two  amendments  expressed, 
at  last,  the  difference  of  attitude  now  assumed  between 
the  North  and  the  South  upon  the  question  of  the  ex 
tension  of  slavery. 

It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  it  represented  the 
difference  of  attitude  of  the  two  great  parties  upon  the 

The    arty  su^jec^-     The  National  conventions  of  these 
platforms  o  f  parties  for  the  nominations  of  candidates  for 
the   presidency  had   just   been   held.      The 
convention  of  the  Democratic  party  had  refused  to  in 
sert  the  declaration  in  its  platform  that  Congress  had  no 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   OREGON   TERRITORY     345 

power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  Territories,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  candidate  nominated  by  it, 
General  Cass,  had  acknowledged  a  leaning  to  something 
akin  to  that  view,  some  five  months  previous,  in  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Nicholson,  of  Tennessee,  which  was  probably  in 
tended  for  circulation  in  the  South.  The  exact  word  ing 
of  Mr.  Cass's  letter  does  not  warrant  us  in  representing 
him  as  holding  to  anything  more,  at  that  time,  than 
that  it  was  sound  policy  for  Congress  to  leave  the  matter 
of  the  admission  of  slavery  to,  or  its  exclusion  from,  the 
Territories  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  themselves. 
It  was  hardly  time  for  Northern  men  to  take  the  view  of 
Congressional  impotence  in  the  matter  held  by  Messrs. 
Rhett,  Calhoun,  and  Davis. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  convention  of  the  Whig  party 
had  refused  to  make  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  proviso 
a  plank  in  its  platform,  in  fact  had  dodged  the  whole 
question  of  principles  by  adopting  no  platform  at  all, 
and  by  nominating  a  military  man,  with  no  political  re 
cord  at  all,  for  its  candidate,  the  old  hero  of  Buena 
Vista,  General  Taylor. 

The  contradiction  of  view  upon  the  question  of  the 
extension  of  slavery  to  the  Territories  was,  thus,  not 
one  between  the  parties,  but  one  between  the  sections. 
The  parties  were  yet  to  be  transformed  by  the  differ 
ences  between  the  sections.  That  this  was  to  be  the 
outcome  no  far-seeing  eye  ought  then  to  have  failed  to 
perceive. 

For  a  fortnight  more  the  confusion  produced  by  the 
contradictory  propositions  of  Mr.  Hale  and  Mr.  Davis 
paralyzed  the  efforts  of  the  Senate  to  pass  ThePresi- 
the  Oregon  bill,  when,  on  July  6th,  1848,  the  %%££!£* 
President  sent  a  special  message  to  Congress  andNewfMexa 
urging  the  immediate  organization  of  Terri-  ico- 
torial  governments  for  California  and  New  Mexico, 


346  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

which  were  still  under  the  military  regime  established 
at  the  time  of  their  occupation. 

It  appeared  to  some  of  the  Senators  that  here  was 
now  offered  the  opportunity  for  settling  the  whole 
Mr.  ciay-  question  of  the  extension  of  slavery  to  the 
i^eomptSJ  Territories,  by  compromise;  and,  on  July 
12th,  Mr.  Bright,  of  Indiana,  moved  to  refer 
the  whole  matter  of  the  organization  of  Territorial  gov 
ernments  in  Oregon,  California,  and  New  Mexico,  to  a 
select  committee,  composed  of  four  Whigs  and  four 
Democrats,  two  of  each  party  from  the  North  and  the 
South,  respectively.  Mr.  Bright's  motion  was  in  the 
form  of  an  amendment  or  suggestion  to  a  motion  made 
by  Mr.  Clayton,  that  the  Oregon  bill  be  referred  to  such 
a  committee.  Mr.  Clayton  accepted  Mr.  Bright's  modi 
fication  of  his  motion,  and  the  Senate  immediately  voted 
the  resolution,  and  appointed  the  committee,  with  Mr. 
Clayton  as  chairman. 

On  the  18th,  Mr.  Clayton  reported  the  bill  from  his 
committee,  which  provided  for  the  organization  of  Ore 
gon,  with  its  existing  anti-slavery  laws,  and  with  the 
recognition  of  the  power  to  the  Territorial  legislature 
to  change  them  ;  and  for  the  organization  of  California 
and  New  Mexico,  referring  the  question  of  the  legality 
of  slavery  in  them  to  the  Territorial  courts,  with  appeal 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  a  con 
stitutional  question.  That  is,  the  proposition  with 
reference  to  slavery  in  California  and  New  Mexico  was, 
that  slaveholders  might  take  their  slaves  into  these  Ter 
ritories  upon  their  own  responsibility,  and  that  if  any 
slaveholder  should  be  disturbed  in  the  possession  of  his 
slave,  he  might  bring  an  action  in  the  Territorial  courts 
against  the  party  disturbing  him,  with  the  right  of  ap 
peal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  which 
final  tribunal  should  determine  the  question  as  a  matter 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   OREGON   TERRITORY     347 

of  constitutional  law,  and,  therefore,  upon  its  own  in 
dependent  interpretation  of  the  Constitution. 

The  Senate  debated  this  bill  for  a  week,  during  which 
time  the  flimsy  character  of  the  makeshifts  pa88age  of 
became  painfully  apparent.  The  Senate 
passed  the  bill,  however,  on  the  26th,  and 
sent  it  to  the  House.  the  House- 

The  House  rejected  it,  and  proceeded  with  its  own 
bill,  and,  on  August  2nd,  passed  the  latter  by  a  strict 
sectional  vote,  and  sent  it  to  the  Senate  for  concurrence. 

On  the  10th,  the  Senate  passed   this  bill,  with   an 
amendment,  proposed  by  Mr.   Douglas,  extending  the 
Missouri   Compromise  line  of  thirty-six  de 
grees     and   thirty   minutes   to   the   Pacific.   biUinth?seS 
The  House  immediately  rejected  the  amend-  f>eo  uTfa  J^ 
ment,  and  the  Senate  was  compelled  to  re-  amen^ment- 
cede,  or  let  Oregon  go  without  Territorial  government. 
It  wisely  voted,  on  the  12th,  to  recede  from  its  amend 
ment,  and  passed  the  bill,  with  the  Congressional  pro 
hibition  of  slavery,  and  without  compromise     passage  of 
as  to  the  settlement  of  the  slavery  question  gg  Vy6^ 
in  California  and  New  Mexico.     Among  the  gress- 
Senators  who  changed  their  votes  upon  the  amendment 
were  Douglas  from  the  North,  and  Benton  and  Houston 
from  the  South. 

The  feeling  aroused  outside  of  Congress  by  the  con 
test  within  the  body  was  most  intense,  and  had,  for  its 
permanent  result  the  organization  of  the  Anti-slavery- 
extension   party.     It  called  itself   then   the 
"  Free-soil  "  party.     It  held  a  National  con-  8onhparty  fn 
vention  at  Buffalo,    New  York,  on  August  1848> 
9th,  and  nominated  Mr.  Van  Buren  for  the  presidency, 
on  a  platform  which  distinctly  affirmed  the  power  of 
Congress  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territories,  and 
its  duty  to  exercise  the  power.     Here  was,  at  last,  the 


348  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

principle  and  the  party  of  the  future.  Those  who  com 
posed  it  held  to  the  Union  and  the  Government,,  vindi 
cated  the  national  character  of  both,  and  while  they 
denied  none  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Southern 
Commonwealths,  and  none  of  the  compromises  of  the 
Constitution  with  the  slaveholders,  yet  they  refused  to 
allow  the  great  evil  under  which  the  country  suffered 
to  spread  into  regions  uncontaminated  by  it. 

The  President  signed  the  Oregon  bill,  on  August  14th, 
for  the  reason,  he  said,  among  other  reasons,  that  it 
The  Preei-  preserved  the  principle  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promi'of  ?£  promise,  making  the  territory  north  of  thirty- 
Oregon  bin.  six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  free  soil.  And 
in  his  message  of  December  5th,  following,  he  urged 
the  speedy  organization  of  California  and  New  Mexico, 
either  upon  that  principle,  or  upon  the  principle  of  non 
interference  by  Congress  with  the  question  of  slave- 
holding  in  them,  or  upon  the  basis  of  an  appeal  of  the 
question  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
which  body  should  interpret  the  Constitution  upon  the 
subject.  He  said  he  believed  the  first  way  contained 
the  true  principle,  and  was  the  fair  thing,  but  that 
he  was  willing  to  proceed  in  either  of  the  other  two 
ways. 

At  the  same  time,  the  President  gave  official  veri 
fication  to  the  rumors  of  the  discovery  of  great  quanti 
ties  of  gold  and  silver  in  California,  which 
silver  in  &caii-  quickened  the  emigration  of  the  bold  and 
adventurous  spirits  from  all  parts  of  the 
country  to  the  new  El  Dorado. 

The  temper  of  Congress  against  slavery  extension  was 
even  stronger  in  the  session  of  1848-49,  than  in  the 
preceding  session.  The  Whig  majority  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  remained,  and  now  came  a  support 
to  the  anti-slavery-extension  principle  of  the  Northern 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF    OREGON   TERRITORY      349 

Whigs  from  Northern  Democrats,  which  had  not  been 
before  accorded.  The  elections  of  1848  had  greatly 
surprised  the  Northern  Democrats.  The  The  eiec- 
Whig  candidate,  General  Taylor,  carried  a 
majority  of  the  Southern  Commonwealths, 
and  was  chosen  President.  The  Demo-  Democrats, 
crats  of  the  North  considered  that  they  had  been  left 
in  the  lurch  by  the  Democrats  of  the  South,  and  came 
to  the  session  of  1848-49  with  revenge  in  their  hearts. 
They  were  disposed  to  join  hands  with  the  Northern 
Whigs  against  the  extension  of  slavery  into  any  more  of 
the  Territories  of  the  Union.  This  spirit  was,  however, 
far  more  manifest  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  than 
in  the  Senate.  On  December  llth,  1848,  Mr.  Douglas 
brought  into  the  Senate  a  plan  for  avoiding  the  question 
in  respect  to  slavery  in  California  and  New  p]ang  f 
Mexico,  by  immediately  erecting  the  whole  of  the  organiza- 

.    J  _   /  tion  of  Cali- 

the  territory  acquired  irom  Mexico  into  a  sin-  fomia    and 

in  ,,,  -.  .  .    ,    .     New  Mexico. 

gle  Commonwealth,  and  reserving  the  right 
to  Congress  to  create  new  Commonwealths  in  that  part  of 
this  territory  lying  east  of  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains. 
This  proposition  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  com 
mittee  for  report ;  but  before  the  report  was  presented 
Mr.  Smith,  of  Indiana,  chairman  of  the  committee  on 
Territories,  brought  in  bills  for  the  organization  of 
Upper  California  and  New  Mexico,  with  the  slavery  re 
striction  of  the  Ordinance  of  '1787  in  them.  On  Janu 
ary  9th,  1849,  Mr.  Berrien,  chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
committee,  reported  adversely  upon  Mr.  Douglas's  pro, 
position,  on  the  grounds,  alleged  by  him,  that  Congress 
could  not  create  a  Commonwealth,  but  could  only  admit 
a  Commonwealth  into  the  Union  after  it  had  been  created 
by  the  sovereign  act  of  the  people  residing  in  it,  for  the 
performance  of  which  act  the  status  of  Territorial  or 
ganization  was  necessary,  and  that  Congress  could  never 


350  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

constitutionally  disconnect  from  any  Commonwealth  any 
portion  of  its  territory  for  the  purpose  of  forming  it 
into  another  Commonwealth,  without  the  consent  of  the 
Commonwealth  itself. 

Mr.  Douglas  immediately  modified  his  bill  so  as  to 
meet  the  latter  objection  ;  and  on  January  24th,  oifered 
Mr.  Doug-  a  substitute  for  his  former  proposition,  which 
las'spian.  provided  for  a  Commonwealth  of  California 
that  would  not  quite  cover  the  territory  which  the  Mexi 
cans  included  under  the  title  of  the  Province  of  Upper 
California.  On  Mr.  Douglas's  own  motion,  this  proposi 
tion  was  referred  to  a  select  committee,  of  which  he  was 
appointed  chairman  ;  and,  on  the  29th,  he  reported 
a  bill  from  the  committee  for  forming  the  territory  ac 
quired  from  Mexico  into  two  Commonwealths,  to  be 
called  California  and  New  Mexico  ;  but  the  Senate 
showed  so  much  opposition  to  the  project  that  it  was 
dropped.  More  than  half  the  session  had  now  passed, 
and  the  Senate  appeared  to  be  farther  than  ever  from 
any  consensus  in  regard  to  what  should  be  done  for 
California  and  New  Mexico.  It  was  a  serious  condition 
of  things.  The  inhabitants  of  these  Territories  were 
importunately  demanding  the  establishment  of  civil 
government  over  them  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  and  Congress  was  apparently  to  do  noth 
ing  for  them  during  the  current  session. 

On   February  19th,  Mr.  Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  came 
forward  in  the  Senate  with  an  expedient.     He  moved 

Mr.  Walker's  to  attach  to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appro- 
expedient,  priation  Bill  a  provision  for  extending  the 
Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  naturally 
applicable,  over  all  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico, 
and  for  authorizing  the  President  to  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations,  and  to  appoint  civil  officials,  for 
their  execution.  The  Senate  passed  this  amendment, 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   OREGON   TERRITORY      351 

and  sent  the  Appropriation  Bill  thus  modified  back  to 
the  House  for  concurrence. 

Meanwhile  the  bill  in  the  House  for  the  Territorial 
organization  of  Upper  California,  with  the  slavery  pro 
hibition  clause  in  it,  was  proceeding  through  The  House 
a  most  exciting  debate,  but  with  increasing  Territorial  or6 


prospect  of  final  passage.    On  February  27th, 
it  was  passed,  by  an  almost  sectional  vote,  and  forilia- 
sent  to  the  Senate.     The  Senate  referred  it  to  its  com 
mittee  on  Territories,   and  there  it  slept   as  in  "  the 
tomb  of  all  the  Capulets." 

On  March  1st,  the  House  took  up  the  Senate's  amend 
ment  to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriation  Bill,  and 
referred  it  to  the  committee  on  Ways  and 
Means.  This  committee  reported,  on  March  er'B  scheme  in 
2nd,  an  amendment  to  the  Senate's  amend 
ment,  which  provided  for  the  continuance  of  the  status 
of  military  possession  and  of  the  Mexican  laws  in  all  the 
territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  until  six  months  after 
the  close  of  the  next  session  of  Congress.  The  pur 
pose  of  this  amendment  was  the  continuance  of  the 
Mexican  law  excluding  slavery.  The  House  did  not, 
however,  adopt  this  proposition,  but  sent  the  Appropri 
ation  Bill  back  to  the  Senate  stripped  of  the  Senate's 
amendment.  The  Senate  asked  a  conference  upon  the 
subject,  which  was  granted  by  the  House,  but  the  Con 
ference  committee  could  come  to  no  agreement. 

The  House  now  passed  the  proposition  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  committee,  slightly  modified  in  form,  and  sent  it 
to  the  Senate.  Mr.  Webster  moved  concur-  Mr.  Web- 
rence  with  the  House  in  this  proposition,  and  Berrien1  on 


said  that  it  meant  no  more  than  the  exist-  ^averr*!!!8  the 
ing  status,  which  would  continue  if  nothing  ^ed^f  roam 
were  done.     Mr.  Berrien  contended,  on  the  Mexico. 
contrary,  that  only  the  private  law  of  the  ceding  country, 


352  THE   MIDDLE  PEEIOD 

the  law  regulating  the  relations  between  individuals,  re 
mains  in  force  in  the  territory  ceded,  until  changed  by 
the  positive  acts  of  the  country  receiving  the  cession  ; 
that  the  public  law  of  the  receiving  country  is  extended 
at  once,  by  virtue  of  the  occupation,  over  the  cession ; 
and  that  slavery  was  a  part  of  the  public  law  of  the 
United  States,  since  both  the  system  of  taxation  and  that 
of  representation  rested  in  part  upon  it.  Mr.  Berrien 
concluded  from  these  postulates  of  international  and 
constitutional  law  that,  if  Congress  did  nothing  in  the 
premises,  the  President  would  continue  to  administer,  by 
means  of  his  military  officials,  the  private  law  of  Mexico, 
and  the  public  law  of  the  United  States,  in  the  territory 
acquired  from  Mexico,  and  that  this  would  allow  slave 
holders  to  take  their  slaves  into  this  territory,  and  hold 
them  in  slavery ;  but  that  if  Congress,  by  a  positive  enact 
ment,  should  adopt  the  Mexican  laws,  en  bloc,  for  this 
territory,  slavery  would  be  thereby  excluded  from  it.  In 
a  word,  he  demonstrated,  or  thought  he  did,  that  the 
proposition  of  the  House  of  Representatives  contained 
the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  proviso.  The  Senate  was 
so  deeply  impressed  by  Mr.  Berrien's  argument,  and  so 
much  opposition  to  the  proposition  of  the  House  was 
manifested,  that  Mr.  Webster  offered  to  withdraw  his 
motion,  if  the  Southerners  would  agree  to  recede  from 
the  Senate^s  amendment.  The  bargain  was  struck,  and 
the  Thirtieth  Congress  expired  without  having  done 
anything  for  the  governmental  organization  of  Cali 
fornia  and  New  Mexico,  and  without  having  advanced, 
in  the  slightest  measure,  toward  the  solution  of  the  fate 
ful  question  of  slavery  extension  in  the  vast  empire 
conquered  from  Mexico. 

The  official  announcement  made  by  President  Polk 
of  the  mineral  wealth  of  California  had  increased  the 
excitement  for  emigration  thither  to  a  fever,  and  by  the 


THE   ORGANIZATION    OF    OREGON    TERRITORY      353 

close  of  the  spring  of  1849,   California  had  a  popula 
tion  within  her  provincial  limits  numerous      Emigration 
enough,    according    to    prevailing    concep-  to  California, 
tions,  to  make  a  Commonwealth. 

The  new  President,  Taylor,  thought  that  all  further 
controversy  about  the  Territorial  organization  of  Cali 
fornia  might  now  be  avoided,  by  skipping  presidentTay- 
the  Territorial  period  and  status  altogether,  lor'8  8Cheme' 
and  organizing  California  immediately  as  a  Common 
wealth.  He  sent  a  commissioner  to  examine  the  situa 
tion  on  the  ground  and  make  report.  Whether  the 
commissioner  imparted  the  President's  scheme  to  Gen 
eral  Riley,  the  military  Governor,  or  not,  we  are  not 
informed.  AVe  have  good  reason,  however,  to  suspect 
it,  since  Riley  immediately  issued  a  call  for  a  convention 
of  the  people  of  California  to  frame  a  Commonwealth. 

The  people  quickly  responded  by  choosing  delegates, 
and  the  delegates  met  at  Monterey  on  September  1st, 
1849.  By  October  13th,  their  work  was 

^  .  -I'-ii  Tneconven- 

completed,  and  the  organic  law  which  they  tion  at  Mon- 
d rafted  was  ratified  by  the  people,  on  Novem 
ber  13th.  One  of  its  provisions  was  the  prohibition  of 
slavery.  The  rilling  up  of  California  by  immigration 
had  been  too  sudden  for  the  holders  of  slaves  to  take 
part  in  the  movement.  It  was  accomplished,  it  could 
be  accomplished,  only  by  bold,  alert,  shrewd  advent 
urers,  untrammelled  by  families  or  stupid  African  re 
tainers.  It  was  reported  that  every  delegate  in  the 
convention  voted  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  and  the 
people  ratified  the  instrument  containing  it  by  a  vote  of 
fifteen  to  one. 

The  President  informed  Congress,  in  his  message  of 
December  4th,  1849,  of  the  proceedings  in  California, 
and  manifested  his  desire  to  admit  California  into  the 
Union  at  once.  He  also  predicted  that  the  people  of 


354  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

New  Mexico  would  soon   follow  the   example   of  the 
Californians.     The  policy  of  the  Administration  in  ref 
erence  to  this  question  was  thus  clearly  de- 

Thepolicyof     „        ,  ,  ,     ,_          •,,•-, 

the  Adminis-  fined,,  and  was,  whether  intentional  or  not, 
a  policy  favorable  to  the  prohibition  of  slav 
ery  in  both  California  and  New  Mexico.  The  slave 
holders,  or  rather  the  slavery  extensionists,  regarded 
the  President's  position  as  treachery  to  his  section. 

The  policy  of  the  slavery  extensionists  was  to  organize 
California  and  New  Mexico  as  Territories,  without  the 

The  policy  Prohibition  of  slavery  in  them,  giving  thus 
extOTBioiS«tey  ^me  an<^  opportunity  for  slaveholders  to 
settle  in  them,  with  their  slaves,  and,  when 
the  time  should  come  for  the  formation  of  Common 
wealth  governments  in  them,  to  vote  an  organic  law 
perpetuating  slavery.  This  policy  was  manifested  anew 
in  the  bill  introduced  into  the  Senate,  on  the  last  day  of 
December,  1849,  by  Mr.  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  for  the 
organization  of  the  entire  Mexican  cession  into  three 
Territories — California,  Deseret  or  Utah,  and  New 
Mexico. 

The   slavery   question   in  Congress  had   now   come, 
however,  to  include  more  than  the  matter  of  the  gov- 

The  eie     ernmen^  organization  of  the  territory  ac- 
ments  of  the  quired  from  Mexico.     There  was,  in  the  first 

slavery   ques-       ,  . .  „    . ,       m  , 

tion  in  Con-  place,  the  question  of  the  Texan  boundary, 
in  that,  by  the  Joint  Kesolution  annexing 
Texas,  the  adjustment  of  that  boundary,  as  regarded 
foreign  states,  at  least,  was  reserved  to  Congress.  Texas, 
as  we  know,  claimed  the  Eio  Grande  from  mouth  to 
source,  and  thence  the  mountain  ridge  to  the  forty-sec 
ond  parallel  of  latitude  as  her  southwestern  and  western 
boundary.  She  came  into  the  Union  with  a  law  on  her 
statute  book  asserting  this  boundary.  The  Treaty  with 
Mexico,  recognizing  the  line  of  the  Kio  Grande  to  the 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   OREGON  TERRITORY      355 

limits  of  New  Mexico,  and  ceding  New  Mexico,  made  the 
question  of  the  Texan  boundary  a  purely  internal  ques 
tion  for  the  United  States,  if  it  was  any  longer  a  ques 
tion.  The  Abolitionists  and  anti-slavery-extensionists 
wanted  to  reduce  Texas  in  area,  since  slavery  was  estab 
lished  by  the  law  of  the  Commonwealth  throughout  its 
entire  extent.  They  therefore  interpreted  the  Besolu- 
tion  of  annexation  as  reserving  that  power  to  Congress, 
even  after  the  question  had  become  purely  internal.  The 
slavery  extensionists,  on  the  contrary,  contended  that  the 
power  reserved  to  Congress  in  reference  to  the  Texan 
boundary  was  now  obsolete,  since  it  expressly  related 
only  to  the  adjustment  of  the  same  with  Mexico,  and  that 
had  been  accomplished  by  the  Treaty.  Then,  there  was 
the  war  debt  of  Texas,  which  was  justly  a  charge  upon 
the  United  States — although  the  Eesolution  of  annexa 
tion  repudiated  it — since  it  was  hypothecated  upon  rev 
enue,  the  proceeds  from  which  were  being  covered  into 
the  United  States  Treasury,  the  customs  collected  in  the 
Texan  ports.  And,  then,  there  was  the  question  of  the 
rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  since  the  execution  of  the 
existing  law,  that  of  1793,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  had 
been  rendered  so  difficult  by  the  movements  of  the  Abo 
litionists,  after  1835,  as  to  make  a  more  strenuous  meas 
ure  necessary,  unless  the  slaveholders  would  abandon 
their  constitutional  rights  to  the  rendition  of  their  es 
caped  slaves.  And,  lastly,  there  was  the  ever-recurring 
question  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  which  was  still  clamoring  for  a  hearing. 

Already,  before  the  closing  week  of  January,  1850, 
had  bills  been  brought  forward,  both  in  the  Senate  and 
in  the  House,  touching  all  of  these  subjects,  except, 
perhaps,  the  last,  when,  on  the  29th,  Mr.  Clay  came 
forward  with  his  famous  proposition  for  the  adjustment 
of  them  all  in  one  grand  scheme. 


356  THE  MIDDLE  PEEIOD 

This  proposition  provided,  in  the  first  place,  for  the 

immediate  admission  of  California  as  a  Commonwealth, 

with  suitable  boundaries,  and  without  any 

Mr.    Clay's  .      .  ,  j     i 

plan  of  com-  restrictions  as  to  slavery  ;  in  the  second  place, 
for  the  establishment  of  Territorial  govern 
ments  in  all  of  the  remainder  of  the  Mexican  cession, 
without  any  restrictions  as  to  slavery  ;  in  the  third  place, 
for  fixing  the  western  boundary  of  Texas,  so  as  to  exclude 
any  portion  of  New  Mexico  ;  in  the  fourth  place,  for  the 
assumption  of  the  Texan  debt  contracted  before  annexa 
tion  and  hypothecated  upon  the  Texan  customs,  on 
condition  of  the  relinquishment  by  Texas  of  all  claims 
on  New  Mexico  ;  in  the  fifth  place,  for  the  abolition  of 
the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  slaves 
brought  into  the  District  from  the  outside  for  the  pur 
pose  of  sale  ;  and  in  the  sixth  place,  for  a  more  effective 
law  for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  The  resolutions 
also  contained  declarations  that  slavery  did  not  then  ex 
ist  in  any  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  and 
that  Congress  had  no  power  to  prohibit  or  obstruct  trade 
in  slaves  between  the  slaveholding  Commonwealths. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Clay  asked  the  Senators 
to  consider  his  propositions  carefully  before  committing 
siavehoid-  themselves,  and  suggested  that  they  should 
ffSPaSR  laJ  over  for  a  week>  the  Southern  Senators 
plan.  immediately  proceeded  to  attack  the  plan  at 

several  points.  They  objected  to  California  being  al 
lowed  to  jump  the  Territorial  period  of  probation  and 
preparation  for  Commonwealth  government.  They  de 
clared  Mr.  Clay's  dictum  about  the  existing  illegal 
ity  of  slavery  in  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico  to 
be  an  assumption,  and  asserted  that  slavery  was  legal 
everywhere  in  the  United  States,  unless  a  positive  law 
forbade  it.  They  vindicated  the  claims  of  Texas  to  the 
boundaries  designated  by  the  Act  of  the  Texan  Con- 


THE   ORGANIZATION    OF   OREGON   TERRITORY      357 

gres's  in  1836.  And  while  some  of  them  were  not  de 
cidedly  opposed  to  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,,  most  of  them  deprecated  med 
dling  with  the  subject  at  all,  and  wanted  to  substitute 
for  Mr.  Clay's  proposition  on  the  subject  a  declaration 
of  the  lack  of  any  power  in  Congress  to  deal  with  slavery 
in  the  District.  The  improvement  of  the  fugitive  slave- 
law  was  about  the  only  thing  in  the  entire  plan  which 
met  with  their  approval.  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  said  out 
right  that  he  wanted  a  positive  recognition  from  Con 
gress  of  the  legality  of  slavery  in  the  new  territory  south 
of  the  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Abolitionists  and  the  anti- 
slavery-extensionists  insisted  upon  the  immediate  ad 
mission  of  California,  with  its  anti-slavery  Anti-slavery 
constitution  ;  upon  the  insertion  of  the 
principle  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  in  the  Ter-  plan- 
ritorial  organization  of  the  remainder  of  the  acquisition 
from  Mexico ;  upon  the  contraction  of  the  Texan  limits, 
without  any  compensation  to  Texas  ;  upon  the  abolition 
of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  a 
declaration  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  deal  with  slavery 
in  the  District  ;  and  upon  a  jury  trial,  at  the  place  of 
apprehension,  for  every  claimed  fugitive  from  labor. 

The  contradiction  between  these  views  appeared  ir 
reconcilable.     We  may  say,  however,  that  a  start  toward 
an  approach  was  caused  by  the  transmission 
of  California's  application  to  Congress  for  ad-  application 

.     .  ,.,      .     ,      ,1      TT    •  for  admission. 

mission,  as  a  Commonwealth,  into  the  Union. 

This  happened  on  February  13th.  On  the  follow 
ing  day,  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to  take  up  the  President's 
message  accompanying  the  application,  and  thus  to  con 
sider  the  California  question  separately  from  the  others. 
Mr.  Clay  agreed  to  this.  Mr.  Foote,  of  Mississippi, 
scolded  Mr.  Clay  for  thus  betraying  the  South,  but  the 


358  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Southerners  were  made  to  feel  that  they  must  modify 
their  opposition  to  Mr.  Clay's  plan,  if  they  desired  to 
avoid  something  like  this. 

On  March  4th,,  Mr.  Calhoun  made  his  last  great  speech 
upon  the  whole  political  situation,,  its  threatening  char 
acter,  and  its  possible  rectification.  He  was 
houn's  iaast  too  feeble  to  pronounce  it  himself,,  and  it 
was  read  for  him  by  Senator  Mason.  Mr. 
Calhoun's  propositions  were,  that  the  Union  was  en 
dangered  ;  that  the  immediate  cause  of  the  danger  was 
the  universal  discontent  prevailing  in  the  South  from 
the  feeling  that  the  South  could  no  longer  remain  with 
safety  and  honor  in  the  Union  ;  and  that  the  cause  of 
this  feeling  was  the  fact  that  the  balance  of  power  be 
tween  the  two  sections  of  the  country  in  the  Government 
was  gone,,  and  the  stronger  section  was  endeavoring  to 
make  the  Government  an  unlimited  centralized  democ 
racy,  and  use  it  for  interfering  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
the  weaker,,  and  for  absorbing  the  substance,  as  well  as 
destroying  the  rights,  of  the  weaker. 

He  suggested  as  remedies  for  the  evils,  which  he 
thought  existed  and  impended,  an  equal  division  of  the 
territory  to  the  Pacific  between  the  North  and  the  South, 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  restoring  the  balance 
of  power  between  the  two  sections,  proper  laws  for  the 
rendition  of  fugitives  from  labor,  and  cessation  of  the 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question. 

What  should  be  the  provisions  of  the  amendment, 
restoring  the  balance  of  power  in  the  Government,  and 
how  the  cessation  of  the  agitation  could  be  compelled, 
were  not  explained.  It  was  not  easy  to  see  how  these 
points  could  be  advanced  beyond  the  position  of  general 
propositions.  It  was,  however,  a  great  and  solemn  pres 
entation  of  the  whole  question,  and  it  .made  a  great  im 
pression. 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF    OEEGON   TERRITORY     359 

On  March  7th,  Mr.  Webster  made  his  famous  speech, 
giving  his  great  influence  to  pacification  and  compromise, 
and  to  the  preservation  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr    W  c  b  - 

He  told  the  Northerners  that  they  were  bound  stems'  March 
by  the  agreement  with  Texas  to  admit  four  7 
new  Commonwealths  from  Texan  territory,  under  the 
usual  conditions  ;  that  they  were  bound  by  the  Con 
stitution  to  deliver  up  fugitive  slaves ;  and  that  since 
nature  had  made  slavery  impossible  in  California  and 
New  Mexico,  they  ought  not  to  irritate  the  Southerners 
by  demanding  a  Congressional  prohibition  of  slavery 
therein.  He  told  the  Southerners,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  they  should  desist  from  denying  to  citizens  from 
Northern  Commonwealths,  temporarily  within  the  juris 
diction  of  Southern  Commonwealths,  the  rights  of 
citizens.  And  he  told  the  Abolitionists  that  they  should 
measure  their  ideas  of  right,  in  some  degree  at  least,  by 
the  standard  of  the  common  consciousness  of  the  country, 
and  modify  them,  in  some  degree,  thereby.  His  words 
were  received  with  great  satisfaction  by  all  moderate  and 
prudent  men.  Of  course,  they  did  not  satisfy  the  ex 
tremists,  either  in  the  North  or  the  South,  but  they 
settled  the  minds  of  many  who  were  wavering,  and  moved 
the  work  of  temporary  pacification,  at  least,  several  stages 
onward. 

During  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  Mr.  Clay's 
resolutions,  and  before  the  great  efforts  either  of  Mr. 
Calhoun  or  Mr.  Webster,  Mr.  Bell,  of  Ten-  Mr.  Bell's 
nessee,  had  offered  some  propositions,  looking  propos 
to  the  admission  of  California  as  a  Commonwealth,  and 
to  the  formation  of  Territorial  government  for  New 
Mexico.  On  the  day  after  Mr.  Webster's  great  speech, 
Mr.  Foote  moved  the  reference  of  Mr.  Bell's  resolutions 
to  a  select  committee  of  thirteen  members.  No  vote, 
however,  was  immediately  taken,  but  the  debate  upon 


360  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

both  sets  of  resolutions  dragged  on  from  day  to  day, 
and  was  made  more  complicated  by  the  introduction  of 
a  bill  from  the  committee  on  Territories,,  providing  for 
the  immediate  admission  of  California,  and  the  forma 
tion  of  Territorial  governments  for  New  Mexico  and 
Utah. 

On  March  31st,  Mr.  Calhoun  passed  away.  The 
announcement  of  his  death,  the  eulogies  pronounced 
The  death  U^OTL  kis  memorv>  and  the  funeral  rites,  were 
of  Mr.  cai-  most  solemn  and  impressive  occasions.  The 
influence  of  the  sad  event  seemed,  for  the 
moment,  to  soften  the  hearts  of  those  who  had  asso 
ciated  with  him  toward  one  another.  It  seemed  as  if 
political  foes  would  be  willing  to  join  hands  across  his 
bier. 

On  April  llth,  Mr.  Mangum,  of  North  Carolina, 
moved  to  refer  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Clay,  along  with 
Mr.  Foote's  those  of  Mr.  Bell,  to  the  committee  suggested 
Secommittee  ty  Mr.  Foote.  Mr.  Foote  accepted  Mr. 
of  Thirteen.  Mangum's  motion  as  an  amendment  to  his 
own.  After  a  most  determined  opposition  by  Senator 
Benton  to  Mr.  Foote's  motion,  during  which  temper 
rose  so  high  that  Mr.  Benton  threatened  to  cudgel  Mr. 
Foote,  and  Mr.  Foote  actually  drew  a  pistol  upon  Mr. 
Benton,  both  in  the  course  of  the  debate  in  the  Senate 
chamber,  Mr.  Foote's  motion  was  passed.  On  the  next 
day,  April  19th,  the  members  of  the  committee  were 
chosen  by  ballot.  They  were  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Bell,  Mr. 
Berrien,  Mr.  Bright,  Mr.  Cass,  Mr.  Cooper,  Mr.  Dickin 
son,  Mr.  Downs,  Mr.  King,  Mr.  Mason,  Mr.  Mangum, 
Mr.  Phelps,  and  Mr.  Webster.  Seven  members,  includ 
ing  the  chairman,  Mr.  Clay,  were  from  the  South  and 
six  from  the  North. 

On  May  8th,  Mr.  Clay  made  the  report,  and  offered 
the  bills,  from  the  grand  committee,  covering  all  the 


THE   ORGANIZATION    OF    OREGON   TERRITORY      361 

subjects  referred.  The  first  bill  provided  for  the  admis 
sion  of  California,,  with  the  Commonwealth  organiza 
tion  formed  by  her  people  the  preceding  autumn  ;  for 
the  Territorial  organization  of  Utah  and  New  The  re  ort 
Mexico,  without  any  slavery  restriction,  and  and  recom- 

,    •    i  •  -  -i       ™       •  •  -       •-,-,--,         mendations  of 

with  restrictions  upon  the  Territorial  legisla-  the  commit- 
tures  against  passing  any  acts  in  regard  to 
slavery  ;  for  fixing  the  northern  boundary  of  Texas 
upon  a  line  drawn  from  a  point  on  the  Rio  Grande 
twenty  miles  above  El  Paso  to  the  point  on  the  Red 
Eiver  where  the  line  of  the  one  hundredth  degree  of 
longitude  intersects  this  river ;  for  quit-claiming,  so  to 
speak,  to  Texas  the  claims  of  the  United  States  to  the 
country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande  ;  and  for 
paying  Texas  a  sum  of  money,  in  consideration  of  the 
discharge  of  the  United  States  from  all  obligations  to 
pay  the  Texan  debt,  and  of  the  surrender  of  all  claims 
by  Texas  to  country  north  of  the  northern  boundary  as 
fixed  in.  the  bill. 

The  second  bill  provided  that  a  fugitive  from  labor 
must  be  delivered  up  on  the  order  of  any  judge  or  com 
missioner  of  the  United  States  authorized  by  the  laws 
of  the  United  States  so  to  act,  and  that  such  judge  or 
commissioner  was  authorized  to  issue  such  order  on  pre 
sentation  to  him,  by  the  claimant  of  the  fugitive,  of  a 
copy  of  the  record  of  a  competent  court  in  the  Com 
monwealth,  Territory,  or  District  from  which  the  fugi 
tive  was  said  to  have  escaped,  before  which  the  facts  of 
ownership,  identity,  and  escape  had  been  satisfactorily 
proven.  The  judge  or  commissioner  issuing  such  order 
was  required,  in  case  the  fugitive  declared  himself  to  be 
a  free  man,  to  demand  of  the  claimant  of  the  fugitive  a 
bond,  with  surety,  for  $1,000,  pledging  the  claimant  to 
accord  the  fugitive  a  trial  by  jury  of  the  question  of  his 
freedom,  in  a  competent  court  of  the  Commonwealth, 


362  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Territory,  or  District  from  which  he  was  said  to  have  es 
caped. 

The  third  bill  provided  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  for  the  liberation 
of  any  slave  brought  into  the  District  for  the  purposes  of 
sale  or  depot. 

The  debate  began  immediately  upon  the  first  bill,  and 

the  opposition  to  it  from  both  sections  advanced  about 

The  debate  the  same  arguments  as  were  employed  against 

proposed  ^b1?  these  same  subjects  when  presented   in  the 


form  of  Mr-  Cla/s  resolutions.  The  discus 
to  pass  them.  sjon  continued  through  May,  June,  and  July, 
until,  at  the  end  of  July,  nothing  remained  of  the  bill 
but  that  part  of  it  which  provided  for  the  Territorial 
organization  of  Utah.  The  general  plan  of  the  compro 
mise  was  lost. 

The  whole  country  was  amazed,  disappointed,  and 

angry.     The  Senators  were  quickly  and  decidedly  made 

The  temper  to  feel  that  they  dare  not  separate  without 

of  the  country.   doing  southing  to  hea\  the  distractions  of 

the  land. 

The  death  of   President  Taylor,   on  July   9th,  and 

the  accession  of  Mr.  Fillmore,  made  the  Administra- 

The  succes-  ^on  more  favorable  to  the  measures  includ- 

sion   of  Fin-  ed   in   the   compromise   plan.      On   August 

more  and  his  A.  x 

message  of  6th,  he  communicated  to  Congress  the  fact 
that  the  Governor  of  Texas,  P.  H.  Bell,  in 
execution  of  an  act  of  the  Texas  legislature,  was  ex 
tending  the  jurisdiction  of  Texas  over  the  disputed 
territory  on  the  eastern  border  of  New  Mexico,  and 
that  the  President,  as  military  Governor,  in  highest  in 
stance,  of  New  Mexico,  felt  obliged  to  resist  the  move 
ment,  and  that  he  had  informed  the  Governor  of  Texas 
of  his  purpose.  He  besought  Congress  to  avert  the 
calamity  which  now  threatened,  by  attending  at  once 


THE   ORGANIZATION   OF   OREGON   TERRITORY      363 

to  the  matter  of  the  boundary  between  Texas  and  New 
Mexico. 

Under  this  pressure,  the  Senate  took  np  the  Texan 
boundary  bill,  introduced  by  Mr.  Pierce,  of  Maryland, 
which  provided  that  the  northern  boundary  Thepageage 
of  Texas  should  be  the  parallel  of  thirty-six  rfjjffls^Bepa- 
degrees  and  thirty  minutes  from  the  one  ing  *ii  ifrj 
hundredth  degree  of  longitude  to  the  one  contained  in 
hundred  and  third  degree  ;  that  the  western  compromise 
and  southwestern  boundary  should  be  the  E 
one  hundred  and  third  parallel  of  longitude  from  the 
northern  line  to  latitude  thirty-two  degrees,  thence  along 
this  parallel  westward  to  the  Rio  Grande,  thence  the  Rio 
Grande  to  the  Gulf ;  and  that  ten  millions  of  dollars 
should  be  paid  Texas  for  agreeing  to  this  boundary,  and 
for  relinquishing  all  claims  on  the  United  States  in  re 
gard  to  the  payment  of  her  public  debt.  On  August 
9th,  the  bill  passed  the  Senate. 

On  the  13th,  the  Senate  took  up  the  bill  for  the  im 
mediate  admission  of  California,  reported  from  the 
committee  on  Territories,  and  passed  it  by  a  large  ma 
jority. 

On  August  15th,  the  Senate  passed  the  bill  from  the 
committee  on  Territories  for  the  Territorial  organiza 
tion  of  New  Mexico,  without  any  provision  as  to  slavery. 
The  bill  for  the  organization  of  Utah  had  passed,  it  will 
be  remembered,  on  August  1st,  as  the  remnant  of  the 
compromise  plan. 

The  Senate  then  took  up  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  re 
ported  in  March  from  the  Judiciary  committee.  Inas 
much  as  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  had  given 
its  opinion,  in  the  case  of  Prigg  versus  Pennsylvania, 
that  Commonwealth  officers  were  not  required  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  render  any  assist 
ance  in  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  the  Judiciary 


364  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

committee  had  so  constructed  its  bill  as  to  make  use 
of  the  machinery  of  the  central  Government  alone  in 
the  execution  of  the  proposed  law.  The  bill  was  a  some 
what  more  stringent  measure  than  that  proposed  by  Mr. 
Clay's  committee.  It  did  away  with  the  right  of  a 
fugitive  claiming  to  be  a  freeman  to  a  trial  by  jury  of  the 
question  of  his  freedom  in  a  competent  court  of  the 
Commonwealth,  Territory,  or  District  from  which  he 
was  said  to  have  escaped.  It  made  it  the  duty  of  the 
marshals  and  deputy  marshals  of  the  United  States  courts 
to  obey  and  execute  all  of  the  warrants  and  precepts 
issued  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  It  imposed  a 
penalty  of  fine  and  imprisonment  upon  any  person 
knowingly  hindering  the  arrest  of  a  fugitive,  or  at 
tempting  to  rescue  one  from  custody,  or  harboring  one, 
or  aiding  one  to  escape.  And  it  made  the  fee  of  the 
commissioner  $10  in  case  he  should  issue  the  certificate 
of  arrest  to  the  claimant  of  the  fugitive,  and  only  $5  in 
case  he  should  not.  .  Otherwise  it  was  substantially 
the  same  as  the  bill  proposed  by  the  Clay  committee. 
The  Senate  passed  this  bill,  on  August  26th. 

At  last,  on  September  16th,  the  Senate  passed  the  bill 
recommended  by  Mr.  Clay's  committee,  for  the  aboli 
tion  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

One  after  another,  all  these  bills  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives,  against  great  opposition,  but  with  no 
material  alteration,  except  the  connection  of  the  bill 
for  the  organization  of  Territorial  government  in  New 
Mexico  with  that  for  the  adjustment  of  the  Texan 
boundary,  in  which  change  the  Senate  acquiesced,  and 
were  all  signed  by  the  President ;  and  before  the  first 
session  of  the  Thirty-first  Congress  expired,  on  Septem 
ber  30th,  1850,  the  great  work  of  pacification,  as  it  was 
hoped  and  believed  to  be,  had  been  accomplished. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  EXECUTION  OF   THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW,    AND 
THE  ELECTION  OF  1852 

Change  of  Attitude  of  the  Slaveholders  by  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
of  1850— The  First  Cases  Under  the  New  Law— The  Opposition 
to  the  Execution  of  the  Law — Establishment  of  the  "Under 
ground  " — The  Support  of  the  Law  by  the  Political  Leaders — 
The  President's  Support  of  the  Law— Joshua  R.  Giddings — 
Petitions  for  the  Repeal  of  the  Law— The  Shadrach  Case— The 
Investigation  of  the  Case  by  Congress — The  Question  of  In 
creasing  the  Power  of  the  President  to  Execute  the  Law — The 
Sims  Case — Excitement  in  Boston  Over  the  Rendition  of  Sims 
— The  *'  Jerry  Rescue  " — The  President's  Rebuke— Mr.  Foote's 
Finality  Resolutions — The  Failure  of  the  Resolutions  to  Pass 
the  Senate,  but  Their  Success  in  the  House — The  National 
Conventions  of  1852  and  the  Finality  of  the  Compromise 
Measures — The  Deaths  of  Clay  and  of  Webster,  and  the  Ap 
pearance  of  a  Free-soil  Candidate — The  Overwhelming  Demo 
cratic  Victory  of  1852— The  True  Policy  of  the  Slaveholders, 
and  Their  Failure  to  Discern  It. 

DOWN  to  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  of  1850,  it  may  be  said  that  the  slaveholders 
change  of  were  acting,  in  a  certain  sense,  on  the  de- 
8iawhowe?8  fensive-  Before  1787,  slavery  had  been  re- 
%vehsiave  gar(*ed  as  a  temporary  relation,  demanded 
Law  of  1850.  by  the  moral  and  intellectual  degradation  of 
the  Africans,  and  by  the  necessities  of  the  social  struct 
ure  in  which  Anglo-Saxon  and  negro  were  brought 
together.  It  had  been  considered  that  the  rise  of  the 
negro  in  civilization,  by  his  contact  with  the  white  race, 


THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

would  gradually  change  this  relation  in  the  direction 
of  freedom.  In  fact  it  had  done  so,  in  a  considerable 
degree.  But  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  1787, 
the  invention  and  use  of  the  cotton-gin,  the  acquisition 
of  Louisiana,  and  the  general  subsidence  of  the  revolu 
tionary  spirit  of  the  eighteenth  century,  were  all  un 
favorable  to  further  progress  in  this  only  proper  and 
correct  direction.  Between  1830  and  1840,  a  strong 
retrogressive  movement  set  in,  as  we  have  seen,  provoked 
indeed,  in  a  considerable  degree,  by  the  Abolition  prop 
aganda  ;  and  in  consequence  of  it,  the  slaveholders 
abandoned  the  only  moral  principle  upon  which  slavery 
could  be  justified,  and  began  to  adopt  the  idea  of  the 
permanency  of  the  relation,  and  to  undertake  the  adjust 
ment  of  the  laws,  customs,  institutions,  and  policies  of 
the  country  to  this  idea.  And,  at  last,  by  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  of  1850,  they  committed  the  whole  country  to 
this  course.  In  a  word,  they  made  slavery  by  this  law  a 
national  matter,  and  they  did  it  from  the  property  point 
of  view  of  slavery,  the  point  of  view  which  exhibits  it 
in  its  most  hateful  light,  and  from  which  no  moral  jus 
tification  whatsoever  for  its  existence  can  be  found. 

It  is  true  that  the  Constitution  commanded  the  return 
of  fugitive  slaves,  and  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  had  interpreted  the  provision  as  vesting 
the  power  of  executing  this  command  in,  and  imposing 
the  duty  of  its  execution  exclusively  upon,  the  general 
Government,  but  it  was  a  fatal  policy  for  the  slaveholders 
to  insist  upon  the  realization  of  this  right  through  the  gen 
eral  Government.  In  fact,  it  was  a  fatal  policy  to  insist 
upon  its  realization  at  all.  There  was  no  way  to  effect 
it  without  requiring  the  aid  of  the  North  in  the  perpet 
uation  of  slavery.  The  attempt  to  effect  it  was,  there 
fore,  the  assumption  of  an  offensive  attitude  on  the  part 
of  the  slaveholders,  an  attitude  which  was  bound  to  pro- 


EXECUTION    OF   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW      367 

voke  a  general  hostility  to  slavery  throughout  the  North, 
instead  of  the  indifference  which  had  prevailed  under 
the  idea  that  slavery  was  an  institution  of  the  Southern 
Commonwealths,  with  which  the  North  and  the  general 
Government  had  no  concern.  Calhoun  and  Khett  and 
Davis  had  seen  this  danger,  and  they  were  not  sup 
porters  of  a  national  fugitive  slave  law.  They  preferred 
to  consider  the  matter  of  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves 
as  a  special  compact  between  the  "  States/'  and  treat 
its  non-fulfilment  as  a  rupture  of  the  Union.  Possi 
bly,  protected  as  their  "  States "  were  by  the  border 
slaveholding  Commonwealths,  they  did  not  feel  the  ne 
cessity  of  such  a  law.  At  any  rate,  it  was  the  border 
slaveholding  Commonwealths  which  wanted  the  law. 

The  first  apprehension  of  an  escaped  slave,  under  the 
new  Act,  was  made  in  the  city  of  New  York.  One  James 
Hamlet,  who  had  three  years  before  left  his  The  firgt 
mistress,  Mary  Brown,  of  Baltimore,  was  the  cases  under 

__        .f       ,  ...  ,         ,     .,   ,  •  -       IT  the  neW  lftW- 

victim.  He  had  a  wife  and  children  in  JNew 
York.  He  was  surprised  at  his  work,  hastily  tried,  and 
delivered  to  Mrs.  Brown's  agent,  who  conducted  him 
back  to  Baltimore.  When  the  news  of  the  event  spread 
abroad  it  created  great  excitement  among  the  negro  pop 
ulation  throughout  the  North,  and  great  indignation  on 
the  part  of  the  white  citizens  in  many  quarters. 

It  was  calculated  that  there  were  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
thousand  escaped  slaves  living  at  that  time  in  the  non- 
slaveholding  Commonwealths  who  were  lia-  The  opposi- 
ble  to  apprehension  under  the  law  ;  and  every  e^utionof  the 
person  having  any  negro  blood,  whether  es-  law- 
caped  from  slavery  or  not,  felt  the  insecurity  created  by 
the  law.  Meetings  of  persons  belonging  to  these  classes 
were  immediately  held  in  Boston  and  New  York,  and 
resolutions  were  passed  at  them,  praying  the  white  peo 
ple  to  move  for  the  repeal  of  the  law. 


368  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

In  answer,,  so  to  speak,  to  these  appeals,  mass-meetings 
of  white  people  were  held  in  Lowell,  Syracuse,  and  Bos 
ton,  at  which  the  law  was  denounced,  its  repeal  de 
manded,  and  aid  pledged  to  the  negroes  in  the  North  in 
resisting  the  execution  of  the  law.  Ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  such  as  Beecher,  Storrs,  Furness,  Spear,  and 
Cheever,  rained  down  denunciations  upon  the  law  from 
their  pulpits,  declared  it  to  be  in  direct  contravention 
of  the  law  of  God,  and  counselled  resistance  to  its  exe 
cution. 

In  the  midst  of  this  excitement  two  Georgia  slaves, 
named  William  and  Ellen  Crafts,  had  succeeded  in 
Establish-  reaching  Boston,  and  were  concealed  by  some 
-'uVde'r6  of  the  most  high-toned  people  of  that  city, 
ground."  the  Hillards,  Lorings,  and  Parkers,  from 
their  pursuers,  and  aided  in  a  successful  escape  to  Eng 
land.  The  first  branch  of  the  "  Underground,"  estab 
lished  after  the  passage  of  the  law,  ran  through  very  re 
spectable  quarters. 

The  lawyers,  politicians,  and  statesmen  now  felt  that 
it  was  high  time  for  them  to  call  the  people  back  to  the 
The  support  proper  comprehension  and  observance  of  their 
?hehepoijTicai  constitutional  duties.  Clay,  Webster,  Cass, 
leaders.  Douglas,  Buclianan,  Shields,  Curtis,  Choate, 

and  many  others,  instructed  the  people,  both  in  speeches 
and  written  articles,  in  regard  to  the  constitutionality 
of  the  law,  and  their  duty  to  obey  its  requirements. 
With  this  the  tide  of  public  opinion  began  to  change, 
and  the  idea  that  it  was  the  constitutional  duty  of  the 
North  to  the  South  to  secure  the  execution  of  the  law 
began  to  prevail.  Such  was  the  state  of  feeling  when 
the  Congressional  session  of  1850-51  opened,  on  Decem 
ber  2nd. 

In  his  message  to  Congress  President  Fillmore  pro 
claimed  his  adherence  to  the  Compromise  Measures,  as  a 


EXECUTION   OF   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW      369 

final  settlement  of  the  subjects  to  which  they  related, 
said  that  he  believed  the  great  mass  of  the  American 
people  sympathized  with  him,  indicated  that 

i  -.  I  li  t '   f  rcsi~ 

he  would  veto  any  measure  for  the  repeal  of  dent's  support 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  declared  that 
he  would  execute  the  laws  to  the  utmost  of  his  ability 
and  to  the  extent  of  the  power  vested  in  him. 

This  bold  and  determined  language  on  the  part  of  the 
President,  who  had  been  considered  in  the  North  as  per 
sonally  hostile  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  took  the  North 
somewhat  by  surprise,  painfully  so  in  some  quarters, 
while  it  was  highly  approved  at  the  South.  It  un 
doubtedly  contributed,  ultimately  and  in  large  degree, 
to  the  suppression  of  the  resistance  in  the  North  to  the 
execution  of  the  law.  At  the  moment,  however,  it  drew 
out  some  of  the  bitterest  denunciations  of  the  law  which 
were  ever  pronounced . 

Mr.  Joshua  E.  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  moved  the  refer 
ence  of  this  part  of  the  message  to  the  Judiciary  com 
mittee  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  and  joshua  R. 
made  a  speech  in  support  of  his  motion,  Gidding8- 
which  was  an  anti-slavery  harangue  of  the  most  radical 
and  violent  character,  and  in  the  course  of  which  he  de 
nounced  the  President  and  Mr.  Webster  in  unmeasured 
language  as  apostates  from  principle  and  suitors  for 
Southern  favor.  The  reckless  outburst  of  radical  ex 
travagance,  although  somewhat  balanced  by  many  points 
of  sound  sense,  disgusted  the  House,  and  it  voted  down 
Mr.  Giddings's  motion  by  a  large  majority. 

Petitions  began  now  to  flow  into  Congress  for  the  re 
peal  of  the  law.  Generally  they  were  laid  upon  the 
table,  but  more  than  once  a  fierce  debate 

,        ,  .   ,     ,,  Petitions  for 

was  opened,  which  threatened  to  precipitate  the  repeal  of 
another  contest  over  the  right  of  petition.     It  ^ 
was  about  the  time  that  the  Senate  was  considering  what 
24 


370  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

to  do  with  one  of  these  petitions,,  offered  by  Mr.  Ham- 
lin,  of  Maine,  in  February  of  1851,  that  the  news  of  the 
failure  of  the  law  in  the  Shadrach  case  reached  Wash- 

The  shad-  ington.  Shadrach,  claimed  slave  of  John 
rachcase.  DeBree,  of  Norfolk,  Va.,  was. rescued  by  a 
negro  mob,,  while  held  in  custody  in  the  court-house 
in  Boston  under  a  warrant  from  the  United  States  Com 
missioner,,  Mr.  George  T.  Curtis,  and  was  spirited  away 
to  Canada.  The  mob  seems  to  have  had  no  difficulty  in 
accomplishing  its  purpose. 

The  Senate,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Clay,  passed  a  resolu 
tion,  on  February  18th,  1851,  calling  upon  the  Presi- 

Theinvesti- 'dent  for  information  concerning  the  failure 
caee01by0fcone-  of  the  law  in  the  Shadrach  case,  and  the 
means  he  had  adopted  to  meet  the  occur 
rence,  and  asking  the  President  if,  in  his  opinion,  fur 
ther  means  should  be  placed  at  his  disposal  by  Con 
gress  for  enabling  him  to  execute  the  laws  with  more 
success. 

On  the  21st,  the  reply  of  the  President  was  received. 
It  contained  an  account  of  the  occurrence  in  Boston  ;  a 
summary  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  and  of  Massa 
chusetts  on  the  subject  of  confining  United  States 
prisoners  in  the  jails  of  the  Commonwealth,  which  dem 
onstrated  the  fact  that  Massachusetts  had  forbidden  the 
use  of  her  jails  and  the  aid  of  her  officials  in  fugitive 
slave  cases  ;  a  declaration  of  opinion  that  the  President 
was  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  use  the  regular 
army  and  navy,  when,  in  his  judgment,  it  was  necessary 
for  the  suppression  of  violence  and  the  execution  of  the 
laws,  and  without  giving  warning  of  his  intention  by 
any  proclamation  ;  and  a  suggestion  to  Congress  to  con 
firm  this  opinion  by  a  positive  act,  which  would  include 
the  militia  as  well  as  the  regular  army  and  navy,  and 
would  authorize  a  marshal  or  commissioner  of  the 


EXECUTION   OF  THE   FUGITIVE  SLAVE   LAW      371 

United  States  to  summon  an  organized  militia  force  as 
a  part  of  the  posse  comitatus. 

Mr.  Clay  immediately  moved  the  reference  of  the 
communication  to  the  Judiciary  committee.  This  mo 
tion  called  out  a  three  days'  debate  in  the 
Senate,  during  which  it  became  manifest  tion  ot  in- 
that  the  extremists,  from  both  the  North  and  powe^of  'the 
the  South,  had  little  faith  in  the  power  of  SSSfShS 
the  Government  to  execute  the  law,  and  law' 
were  unfavorable  to  the  policy  of  using  the  military 
power  in  its  execution.  Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Hale,  on 
the  one  side,  and  Mr.  Butler,  Mr.  Davis,  and  Mr.  Rhett, 
on  the  other,  contended  that  the  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution  guaranteeing  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves 
did  not  require  a  Congressional  act,  even  if  it  author 
ized  one.  Mr.  Davis  said  that  he  would  see  Massachu 
setts  quit  the  Union  rather  than  execute  the  law  by 
military  power  within  her  limits.  It  was  evident  that 
these  men  were  not  anxious  to  have  the  law  executed 
at  all.  Their  motives  for  the  same  must  have  been  very 
different,  but  it  would  hardly  be  an  unfair  speculation 
if  one  should  imagine  that  the  slaveholders  were  not 
averse  to  having  the  failure  of  the  law  for  another  count 
in  their  indictment  against  the  Union. 

The  moderate  men,  however,  of  both  the  North  and 
the  South,  claimed  that  the  law  was  constitutional,  that 
it  was  politic  and  necessary,  that  it  had  been  success 
fully  executed  in  a  number  of  cases,  that  it  could  be 
executed  in  practically  all  cases,  that  it  must  be,  even 
though  it  should  require  the  whole  military  power  of 
the  country,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people 
would  sustain  it  as  carrying  out  the  pledges  of  the  Con 
stitution. 

Mr.  Clay's  motion  was  finally  unanimously  voted, 
and,  on  March  3rd,  two  reports  were  presented  to  the 


372  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Senate,  one  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  Judiciary 
committee  except  Mr.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  and 
the  other  by  Mr.  Butler  alone.  The  former  expressed 
the  opinion  that  the  President  already  possessed  full 
and  adequate  powers  to  execute  the  laws,  and  that  no 
further  legislation  upon  the  subject  was  necessary.  It 
also  held  that  the  organized  military  could  be  summoned 
and  used  by  a  civil  officer  as  a  part  of  the  posse  comitatus. 
Mr.  Butler,  while  agreeing  with  the  other  members  in 
recommending  no  further  legislation  for  the  execution 
of  the  law,  denied  that  the  President  had  the  power 
from  the  Constitution  to  use  the  regular  army  and 
navy  at  his  own  discretion  in  suppressing  insurrec 
tions  and  executing  the  laws,  and  held  that  the  Presi 
dent  could  employ  these  forces  for  such  purposes  in  the 
same  manner  only  that  he  could  employ  the  militia, 
that  is,  under  the  Congressional  Acts  of  1795  and  1807, 
which  required,  among  other  things,  that  a  proclama 
tion  should  precede  the  actual  employment  of  military 
power  in  such  cases. 

Congress  closed  its  session,  on  the  next  day,  without 
having  changed  or  modified  the  law,  and  without  having 
given  the  President  any  additional  means  for  its  execu 
tion.  The  thoughts  of  men  were  turned  again  upon  the 
incidents  of  its  execution. 

During  the  spring  of  1851,  several  cases  of  slave  ap 
prehension  occurred,  the  most  exciting  of  which  was 
The  Sims  that  of  Thomas  Sims,  claimed  in  Boston  by 
case.  ]y[r  james  Potter,  of  Georgia.  He  was  ar 

rested  by  the  City  Marshal  on  the  charge  of  having  com 
mitted  a  larceny,  and  put  under  guard  in  the  Court 
House.  Charles  G.  Loring,  Robert  Rantoul,  Jr.,  and 
Samuel  E.  Sewall,  lawyers  of  much  ability  and  men  of 
high  social  standing,  offered  their  services  in  defence  of 
the  negro.  After  applying  to  several  judges  of  the  su- 


EXECUTION   OF   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW      373 

preme  court  of  the  Commonwealth,  without  success,  for 
a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  they  finally  obtained  one  from 
Judge  Woodbury,  and  argued  the  case  before  him.  The 
Judge  finally  refused  to  interfere  with  the  possession  of 
the  negro  by  the  United  States  Marshal.  The  United 
States  Commissioner,  Mr.  George  T.  Curtis,  then  heard 
the  case,  and  issued  the  certificate  for  the  rendition  of 
the  fugitive  to  his  master.  In  the  early  morning  of  the 
next  day,  the  negro  was  conducted  by  three  hundred 
armed  policemen  to  the  wharf  and  placed  on  board  a 
vessel  bound  for  Savannah.  The  vessel  sailed  safely  out 
of  port,  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was,  at  last,  executed 
in  Boston. 

During  the  trial,  and  for  a  week  afterward,  the  city 
was  in  a  fever  of  excitement.  Meetings  of  the  citizens 
were  held  in  Tremont  Temple  and  Washing-  Excitement 
ton  Hall,  and  on  the  Common,  at  which  the  Se^enditkS 
eloquence  of  Phillips,  Channing,  Edmund  ofsims- 
Quincy,  and  Horace  Mann,  and  the  violent  words  of 
Garrison  and  Parker,  stirred  the  indignation  of  their 
hearers  and  lashed  it  into  an  almost  rebellious  fury. 
A  very  large  part  of  the  inhabitants  felt  that  a  stain 
had  been  put  upon  the  city,  which  must  be  wiped  out 
by  any  means  necessary  to  accomplish  it. 

The  summer  months  of  1851  now  passed  without  any 
notable  instances  of  resistance  to  the  law,  and  conserva 
tive  men,  of  both  the  North  and  the  South,  began  to 
hope  that  the  worst  was  over,  and  that  the  North  would 
acquiesce  without  further  opposition  in  the  execution 
of  the  odious  Act. 

In  the  early  autumn,  however,  violence  again  appeared. 
The  minor  outbreaks  were  soon  overshadowed  by  an  event 
which  occurred  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  in  Octo-     The  „  Jerry 
ber,  1851.     A  negro,  named  Jerry  McHenry,  rescue-" 
who  had  lived  for  several  years  in  Syracuse,  was  suddenly 


374  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

seized  and  carried  before  the  United  States  Commissioner. 
In  the  course  of  the  hearing  he  eluded  the  officer  having 
him  in  charge,  and  bounded  out  of  the  court-room.  He 
was,  however,  overtaken  and,  after  a  fierce  struggle,  re 
captured  and  brought  back.  A  little  later,  a  party  of 
highly  respectable  men,  led  by  Gerrit  Smith  and  the  Kev. 
S.  J.  May,  broke  into  the  court-room,  rescued  the  negro, 
and  smuggled  him  safely  across  the  Canadian  boundary. 
Eighteen  of  these  gentlemen  were  indicted  and  ordered 
to  appear  for  trial.  But  the  whole  community  mani 
fested  so  much  active  sympathy  with  them  that  the  mat 
ter  was  quietly  dropped. 

In  his  message  to  Congress,  of  December  2nd,  1851, 
President  Fillmore  referred  to  these  cases  of  resistance 

The  Presi-  to  the  execution  of  the  law;  declared  the 
dent's  rebnke.  law  to  be  required  by  the  Constitution  ;  de 
nounced  the  opposition  to  its  execution  as  directed 
against  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  itself ;  repeat 
ed  his  dictum  that  the  Compromise  Measures  were  a 
final  settlement  of  the  subjects  embraced  in  them  ; 
and  congratulated  the  country  upon  the  general  acqui 
escence  in  these  Measures  manifested  throughout  the 
Union. 

Two  days  later,  Mr.  Foote  introduced  into  the  Senate 
a  resolution  declaring  these  Measures  to  be  a  definite 

Mr.  Foote's  settlement  of  the  questions  embraced  in  them, 
finality  resoiu-  an(j  recommending  acquiescence  in  them  by 

all  good  citizens. 

The  debate  upon  this  proposition,  which  began  De 
cember  8th,  and  lasted,  off  and  on,  until  February  28th, 
was,  in  the  main,  a  discussion  between  four  Southern 
members — Mr.  Foote,  Mr.  Butler,  Mr.  Ehett,  and  Mr. 
Clemens — during  which  the  history  of  the  movements 
of  the  Southern  leaders  in  1850  and  1851  were  brought 
to  light,  beginning  with  the  Southern  Address,  issued 


EXECUTION   OF   THE  FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW      375 

from  Washington  before  the  passage  of  the  Compromise 
Measures,  for  the  purpose  of  producing  a  united  action 
on  the  part  of  the  South  in  behalf  of  Southern  rights, 
and  the  call  of  the  Nashville  convention  by  the  Missis 
sippi  legislature,  and  ending  with  the  demand  of  the 
convention  for  the  line  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  the  declaration  by  the 
convention  and  by  conventions  in  Mississippi,  Georgia, 
and  South  Carolina,  of  the  abstract  right  of  secession  as 
a  principle  of  the  political  system  of  the  Union.  It  was 
evident  that  these  movements  had  approached  danger 
ously  near  to  an  attempt  at  something  like  practical  seces 
sion,  and  that  the  Southern  leaders  were  now  anxious  to 
underrate  their  significance.  The  Northern  Senators 
allowed  these  Southern  brethren  to  proceed  with  crimina 
tions  and  recriminations  against  each  other,  until  they 
themselves  were  convinced  that  they  would  The  fai}ure 
lose  more  by  the  continuance  of  the  debate  of  the  resoiu- 

,,  ,,  ,  ,          .       ,        .,  ,        tions   to  pass 

than  they  could  gam  by  the  passage  of  the  the    senate, 
resolution.      After  a  fiery   speech    by   Mr.   cefs^in  The 
Clemens,   on  February  28th,   1852,  the  at-  House' 
tempt   to   pass   the   resolution   was   abandoned  in   the 
Senate. 

The  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
cited  by  memorials  sent  into  it  by  the  legislatures  of  New 
Jersey  and  Iowa,  actually  passed  resolutions,  on  April 
5th,  1852,  by  a  large  majority,  declaring  the  finality  of 
the  Measures. 

Petitions  began  again  to  pour  into  the  Senate  for 
the  repeal  of  the  law.  Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Hale,  and  Mr. 
Sumner  presented  such  petitions  and  tried  to  get  a  hear 
ing  upon  them,  but  the  Senate  voted  to  lay  them  all  on 
the  table. 

Such  was  the  situation  when  the  two  great  parties 
assembled  in  their  National  conventions  for  the  nomina- 


376  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

tion  of  their  respective  candidates  for  the  presidency 
and  vice-presidency.  It  was  indicated  from  the  first 
The  Nation-  ^av  °^  ^ne  Congressional  session  of  1851-52, 
ofc°i852na0nnd  that  tlie  nnalitJ  of  the  Compromise  Acts 
the  finality  of  would  be  a  plank  iii  the  platforms  of  both 

the   compro-  .  x 

mise  measures,  parties,  although  it  was  soon  revealed  that 
the  Whig  party  leaders  were  divided  upon  the  subject. 

The  Democratic  convention  met  June  1st,  at  Balti 
more,  and,  on  account  of  the  three-cornered  fight  be 
tween  Buchanan,  Cass,  and  Douglas,  was  obliged  to 
produce  a  "dark  horse.'"  This  proved  to  be  General 
Franklin  Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire,  a  good  lawyer,  a 
brave  soldier,  a  fine  orator,  and  a  courtly  gentleman. 
He  was  known  to  be  a  true  friend  to  the  Compromise 
Acts,  and  was  entirely  acceptable  to  the  South.  The 
platform  contained  the  finality  plank. 

The  Whig  convention  met  fifteen  days  later,  at  the 
same  place.  The  Northern  Whigs,  under  the  lead  of 
Seward,  were  determined  to  defeat  both  Fillmore  and 
Webster,  chiefly  on  account  of  their  fidelity  in  the  execu 
tion  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  The  Southerners  were 
for  Fillmore  first,  and  then  Webster,  for  the  same  rea 
son.  A  sufficient  number  of  the  Northern  delegates 
voted  with  the  Southerners  to  put  the  finality  plank  into 
the  platform,  and  then  offered  the  Southerners  one  of 
their  own  fellow-citizens,  General  Scott,  the  military 
hero  of  the  country.  The  Southerners  finally  accepted 
the  offer. 

If  Seward  desired  the  defeat  and  destruction  of  the 
Whig  party,  he  could  not  have  acted  more  adroitly.  It 
was  to  be  foreseen  that  the  Northern  Whigs  would  not  be 
wholly  faithful  to  their  own  choice  upon  that  platform, 
and  that  many  of  the  Southern  Whigs  would  arrive  at 
the  conclusion  that  the  Democratic  platform  and  the 
Democratic  candidate  furnished  stronger  guarantees  for 


EXECUTION    OF   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW      377 

the  finality  of  the  Compromise  Measures  than  the  Whig 
platform  and  candidate  did. 

Clay  died  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign,  and  Web 
ster  at  the  end  of  it ;  and,  in  the  midst  of  it,  Sumner 
succeeded  in  getting  in  his  ferocious  attack  The  deaths 
on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  in  a  four  hours 
speech  before  the  Senate,  and  the  Free-soil- 
ers  set  up  a  candidate,  Mr.  Hale,  for  the  suf-  soil  candidate, 
frages  of  the  Abolitionists  and  the  anti-slavery-exten- 
sionists.  All  of  these  events  were  unfavorable  to  the 
Whigs  ;  still,  they  did  not  probably  determine  the  result. 
The  people  were  determined  to  have  peace  in  regard  to 
the  slavery  question,  and  they  felt  that  the  Democratic 
party  was  more  likely  to  give  them  the  peace  they  de 
sired  than  the  Whig  party. 

The  Democratic  victory  was  overwhelming.  Twenty- 
seven  Commonwealths  gave  their  electoral  vote  for  Gen 
eral  Pierce,  and  only  four  gave  theirs  for  The  (>ver_ 
General  Scott;  while  the  popular  vote  cast  whelming 

,,,-...  ,        ,  i     ij!        i  Democratic 

lor  Mr.  Hale  was  only  about  one-half  as  large  v  ic  i  o  r  y  of 
as  that  cast  for  Mr.  Van  Buren  in  1848.  The  1 
Democrats  themselves  were  surprised.  Since  the  "era 
of  good  feeling,"  no  presidential  candidate  had  received 
such  a  vote,  either  popular  or  electoral,  as  that  now 
given  to  General  Pierce.  The  country  accepted  the 
decision,  and  settled  down  into  universal  acquiescence  in 
the  Compromise  Measures,  and  in  the  execution  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  in  most  sections  cheerfully,  but  in 
some  sullenly  and  with  bitterness  of  heart. 

Had  the  slaveholders  made  a  wise  use  of  this,  to  them, 
most  favorable  turn  in  affairs,  there  is  lit-  The  true 
tie  question  that  they  might  have  preserved 
indefinitely  their  peculiar  institution  where 
it  existed.  But  wisdom  in  the  case  meant 
that  the  slaveholders  should  themselves  give  no  further 


378  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

occasion  for  slavery  agitation.  It  meant  that  they  should 
cease  to  claim  the  rendition  of  their  fugitive  slaves  by 
the  general  Government  ;  that  they  should  turn  their 
attention  to  perfecting  the  police  administration  in  the 
slaveholding  Commonwealths  for  preventing  the  escape 
of  their  slaves,  and  let  the  few  slaves  who  might  have 
cleverness  enough  to  elude  the  police  of  these  Common 
wealths  go  ;  and  that  they  should,  above  all  things,  ab 
stain  from  any  attempt  to  extend  slavery  beyond  the 
limits  placed  upon  it  by  existing  law.  The  status  of 
every  inch  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  in  refer 
ence  to  the  legality  or  illegality  of  slavery,  was  now  fixed, 
and  the  public  opinion  of  the  country,  of  the  world,  and 
of  the  age,  would  never  permit  that  status  to  be  altered 
to  the  advantage  of  slavery. 

It  is  an  interesting,  though  by  no  means  an  inexplic 
able,  fact  that  the  slaveholders  in  the  Commonwealths 
south  of  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  showed  more 
tendency  to  follow  this  view  of  their  best  policy  than 
those  within  these  border  Commonwealths.  These  latter 
were  an  efficient  protection  to  the  former  in  preventing 
the  escape  of  slaves,  while  they  were  themselves  exposed 
in  much  higher  degree  to  loss.  Still,  it  would  have  been 
the  true  policy  for  the  slaveholders  in  these  also  to  have 
looked  to  their  own  police  administration  for  the  recap 
ture  of  their  runaways  before  the  latter  had  reached 
free  soil,  and  to  have  considered  that  a  slave  having 
sufficient  intelligence  to  elude  this  had  already  attained 
the  point  of  mental  activity  and  of  courage  which  re 
quired  in  good  morals  his  liberation,  and  made  his  further 
retention  in  slavery  both  a  wrong  to  himself  and  a  dan 
ger  to  the  peace  of  the  slaveholding  community  in  which 
he  might  be  held  in  bondage. 

We  may  fairly  say  that  the  slaveholders  in  the  more 
southern  Commonwealths  sustained  the  Fugitive  Slave 


EXECUTION   OF   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE   LAW      379 

Law  more  out  of  consideration  for  their  brothers  in  the 
border  Commonwealths  than  for  the  sake  of  their  own 
immediate  interests,  or  from  their  own  convictions  of  its 
policy,  while  they  would  have  greatly  preferred  the  re 
striction  of  slavery  to  the  territory  south  of  the  line  of 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  to  the  Pacific, 
with  some  sort  of  a  guarantee  of  its  existence  there  dur 
ing  the  Territorial  period,  to  any  chance  of  extending 
slavery  north  of  that  line  by  the  repeal  of  the  prohibi 
tions  already  existing.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising,  in 
view  of  this  state  of  feeling  in  1852,  that,  ten  years  later, 
the  Confederates  considered  themselves  left  in  the  lurch 
by  the  border  Commonwealths,  in  the  support  of  whose 
views  and  interests  they  had  done  so  much  to  provoke 
the  North  to  the  contest. 


CHAPTEE  XIX. 

THE  REPEAL  OF  THE   MISSOURI  COMPROMISE 

The  Connection  of  California  with  the  Mississippi  Valley  —  Nebraska 
—  Mr.  Douglas's  Nebraska  Bill  and  Report—  The  Surprising  As 
sumptions  in  the  Report  —  Mr.  Douglas's  Purpose  —  The  Report 
and  Bill  Together  in  Conflict  with  the  Act  of  1820—  The  New 
Section—  Mr.  Dixou's  Proposed  Amendment  —  Mr.  Blair's  Let 
ter  in  Reference  to  Mr.  Seward's  Connection  with  Dixon's 
Proposition—  Douglas  and  Dixon  —  Mr.  Douglas's  New  Bill  — 
The  Free-soil  Protest  Against  the  Bill—  Mr.  Douglas's  Reply  to 
the  Address  —  Mr.  Chase's  First  Amendment  to  the  Bill  —  The 
Southern  Whigs  Aroused  by  Mr.  Wade's  Accusations  —  Mr. 
Chase's  Amendment  Lost  —  Mr.  Douglas's  Last  Change  in  the 
Wording  of  the  Clause  —  Mr.  Everett's  Views  —  Mr.  Houston's 
Opposition  to  the  Bill—  Mr.  Bell's  Attitude  Toward  the  Bill- 
Mr.  Douglas's  Amendment  Passed  by  the  Senate  —  Mr.  Chase's 
Amendments  —  Mr.  Bell's  Argument  Against  the  Bill  —  Mr. 
Douglas's  Final  Argument  —  The  Passage  of  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  Bill  by  the  Senate  —  Analysis  of  the  Vote  Upon  the 
Bill  —  Development  of  Popular  Opposition  to  the  Bill  —  The 
Kansas  -Nebraska  Bill  in  the  House—  The  Relation  of  the  Ad 
ministration  to  the  Bill  —  President  Pierce  and  Mr.  Davis  — 
The  Bill  Taken  up  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  of  the 
House  of  Representatives—  Mr.  A.  H.  Stephens's  Management 
of  the  Bill—  The  Bill  Passed  and  Signed  by  the  President- 
Analysis  of  the  Vote  on  the  Bill  in  the  House  —  What  the 
Figures  Taught  —  The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  a  Stupendous 
Fallacy. 


President  Fillmore's  last  annual  message  to 
Congress  was  sent  in,  on  December  6th,  1852,  the  quiet 
of  the  country  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question  was  more 


REPEAL   OF  THE   MISSOUEI   COMPROMISE       381 

complete  than  it  had  been  since  1830.  The  President 
did  not  even  mention  the  subject.  Evidently  the 
people  believed  that  the  Measures  of  1850,  and  their 
cordial  endorsement  in  the  elections  just  passed,  had 
finally  solved  the  great  question,  in  so  far  as  the  Con 
gress  could  solve  it  at  all.  But  never  was  there  a  more 
deceptive  peace.  It  was  merely  the  dead  calm  before 
the  dread  cyclone. 

This  time  the  storm  came  from  the  Northwest.  After 
the  acquisitions  of  the  territory  upon  the  Pacific  coast, 
it  was  immediately  apparent  that  these  new 

J  The  connec- 

possessions  must  be  connected,  so  soon  as  pos-  tion  of  caii- 
sible,  with  the  line  of  Commonwealths  on  the  Mississippi 
west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  by  the  Territor 
ial  organization  of  the  country  lying  between.  Mr. 
Douglas  had  conceived  this  idea  as  far  back  as  1847,  and 
had  endeavored  from  that  time  forward  to  secure  the  at 
tention  of  Congress  for  its  realization.  The  seemingly 
more  important  questions  involved  in  the  Compromise 
Measures  gave  little  room  for  the  consideration  of  other 
subjects  between  1848  and  1850.  Now,  however,  that 
these  questions  had  apparently  received  their  final  settle 
ment,  the  moment  seemed  opportune  for  the  solution  of 
the  problem  of  binding  the  Pacific  slope  with  the  settled 
country  of  the  west  valley  of  the  Mississippi. 

In  the  Congressional  session  of  1852-53,  a  bill  passed 
the  House  of  Representatives  for  organizing  the  region 
lying  between  Missouri  and  the  Rocky  Moun-    Nebragka 
tains,  and  between  the   latitudes   thirty-six 
degrees,  thirty  minutes,  and  forty-three  degrees,  into 
the  Territory  of  Nebraska.     A  vote  upon  the  measure 
was,  however,  not  reached  in  the  Senate  before  the  close 
of  the  session. 

During  the  consideration  of  the  bill  in  the  House,  Mr. 
Howe,  of  Pennsylvania,  asked  Mr.  Giddings,  of  Ohio, 


382  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

who  was  a  member  of  the  committee  on  Territories,  from 
which  the  bill  had  come,  why  there  was  no  clause  in 
the  bill  prohibiting  slavery.  Mr.  Giddings  replied  that 
the  Act  of  1820  did  that  for  all  of  this  territory.  Where 
upon  Mr.  Howe  used  these  significant  words:  <( I  should 
like  to  know  of  the  gentleman  of  Ohio,  if  he  has  not 
some  recollection  of  a  compromise  made  since  that 
time."  Mr.  Giddings  quietly  replied  :  "That  does  not 
affect  this  question." 

During  the  discussion  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Atchison,  of  Missouri,  said  that  one  of  his  objections  to 
the  organization  of  this  Territory  was  that  Missouri 
would  be  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  free  soil,  into 
which  the  slaves  of  the  citizens  of  Missouri  could  easily 
escape,  but  that,  as  he  could  see  no  prospect  of  a  repeal 
of  the  Act  of  1820  making  this  region  free  soil,  he  would 
not  be  willing  to  delay  the  organization  of  the  Territory 
on  that  account. 

There  is  no  explanation  of  the  language  used  by  these 
three  gentlemen,  except  that  Mr.  Howe  h?d  conceived 
that,  in  some  way  or  other,  the  Measures  of  1850  had 
modified  the  Act  of  1820  prohibiting  slavery  in  the 
Louisiana  territory  above  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes,  and  that  Mr.  Giddings  and  Mr.  Atchison  had 
never  thought  of  such  a  thing. 

On  December  14th,  1853,  Mr.  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  in 
troduced  a  bill  into  the  Senate  for  the  organization 
of  Nebraska  Territory.  It  was  referred  to  the  com 
mittee  on  Territories,  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  chair 
man. 

On  January  4th,  1854,  Mr.  Douglas  presented  a  bill 
from  the  'committee,  with  a  special  report,  in  which 
latter  document  the  principles  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  in  respect  to  slavery  in  the  Territories,  as  under 
stood  by  the  committee,  or  rather  as  Mr.  Douglas  under- 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI    COMPROMISE       383 

stood  them,  were  stated.  The  report  was  a  more  im 
portant  document  than  the  bill,  since  the  bill,  drawn  in 
vague  terms  upon  this  subject,  was  to  be  in-  Mr.  Doug- 
terpreted  by  the  principles  declared  in  the  re-  Jfni^and^re- 
port.  The  first  paragraph  of  the  report  read  :  P°rt- 
"  The  principal  amendments  which  your  committee  deem 
it  their  duty  to  commend  to  the  favorable  action  of  the 
Senate,  in  a  special  report,  are  those  in  which  the  prin 
ciples  established  by  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850, 
so  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  Territorial  organization, 
are  proposed  to  be  affirmed  and  carried  into  practical 
operation  within  the  limits  of  the  new  Territory."  The 
report  then  declares  these  principles  to  be  :  "  That  all 
questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  in 
the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to 
the  decision  of  the  people  residing  therein,  by  their  ap 
propriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by  them  for  that 
purpose  :  That  all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,  and 
questions  of  personal  freedom,  are  to  be  referred  to  the 
adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the  right  of  ap 
peal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  :  That  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in 
respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  are  to  be  carried  into 
faithful  execution  in  all  the  organized  Territories  the 
same  as  in  the  States." 

These  were  most  astonishing  and  confusing  proposi 
tions  in  a  variety  of  respects.  In  the  first  place,  the 
claim  that  the  Compromise  Acts  of  1850  con-  Theenrpris- 
tained  any  general  principles  of  Territorial  {iof8in9there- 
organization  in  respect  to  slavery,  which  were  port- 
applicable  to  any  other  Territories  than  those  organized 
under  these  Acts,  was  a  surprising  assumption.  It  was 
an  induction  from  one  precedent  when  there  were  half  a 
dozen  precedents  against  it.  The  fact  was  that  the  Acts 
of  1850  only  set  up  a  rule  for  a  single  case,  a  rule  patched 


384  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

up  by  compromise,  and  not  derived  from  any  general 
principle.  This  claim  was  also,  if  admitted,  highly  con 
fusing.  Was  it  a  principle  of  the  Constitution,  and 
therefore  supreme  over  all  Congressional  policies  in  the 
case  ?  Or  was  it  simply  a  principle  of  Congressional  pol 
icy  ?  If  the  former,  then  it  had  already  rendered  the 
prohibition  upon  slavery  in  the  Louisiana  territory,  by 
the  Act  of  1820,  nugatory.  If  it  was  the  latter,  then  it 
would  require  a  new  act  of  Congress  to  apply  it  to  any 
other  Territory  than  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  In  the 
second  place,  the  statement,  also  contained  in  the  report, 
that  there  was  a  pronounced  conflict  of  opinion  in  the 
country  upon  the  question  of  the  constitutional  validity 
of  the  Act  of  1820,  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Louisiana 
territory  above  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes, 
was  equally  surprising.  Nobody  had  heard  the  noise  of 
any  such  conflict.  The  fact  is,  that  conflict  was  yet  to 
be  aroused.  And,  lastly,  it  was  most  highly  surprising 
and  confusing  that  the  attempt  to  rouse  this  conflict 
should  proceed  from  the  bosom  of  the  party  which  had 
won  its  splendid  victory  under  the  peace  issue  upon  the 
subject  of  slavery,  and  should  be  inaugurated  by  a  mem 
ber  of  that  party  from  the  North. 

What  was,  or  what  could  have  been,  Mr.  Douglas's 
purpose  ?  It  is  held  by  most  historians  that  it  was  sim- 
Mr .  Doug-  ply  a  reckless  and  dishonest  bid  for  Southern 
las's  purpose.  SUpp0r^  jn  hjs  ambitious  plans  to  gain  the 
presidency.  Most  of  Mr.  Douglas's  political  opponents 
at  the  time  believed  that  he  was  animated  solely  by  that 
desire.  His  character  was,  according  to  their  view,  that 
of  a  scheming  politician,  who  would  sacrifice  anything 
and  anybody  for  his  own  advancement.  While  we  can 
understand  this  radical  estimate  of  him  by  those  with 
whom  he  was  in  daily  conflict,  it  does  seem  that  the  his 
torians,  with  his  subsequent  career  before  them,  might 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI    COMPROMISE       385 

suspect,  at  least,  that  some  conviction  of  the  rightful- 
ness  of  his  views  may  have  aided  in  moving  him  to  the 
position  which  he  took.  Mr.  Douglas  was  a  Western 
Democrat ;  that  is,  he  was  a  radical  Democrat.  He  had, 
therefore,  an  exaggerated  notion  of  the  virtues  of  the 
people,  and  of  the  importance  of  local  autonomy.  He 
resented  the  idea  that  the  sturdy  adventurers  who  ac 
complished  the  first  settlement  of  a  Western  Territory 
were  not  as  fully  capable  of  local  self-government,  from 
the  very  outset,  as  the  "effeminate"  inhabitants  of  an 
Eastern  Commonwealth.  He  repudiated  the  notion 
that  they  needed  any  pupilage  from  the  general  Govern 
ment  in  the  management  of  public  affairs.  He  was  not 
alone  in  such  views.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  mass  of 
the  people  in  his  section  held  the  same  views  at  that  time. 
They  have  not  progressed  much  beyond  them  now.  Is 
it  not,  then,  fair  to  say  that  Mr.  Douglas,  in  all  prob 
ability,  really  believed  that  the  reference  of  the  ques 
tions  in  regard  to  slavery  to  the  residents  of  each  Terri 
tory,  as  well  as  to  those  of  each  "  State,"  was  the  true 
principle  of  the  political  science  of  the  Republic,  and 
the  true  policy  of  its  legislation  ?  If  his  convictions  and 
his  ambition  went  hand  in  hand,  and  if  his  convictions 
were  not  the  product  of  his  ambition,  should  he  be  so 
harshly  criticised  for  declaring  them  ?  It  is  true  that 
his  announcement  of  them  filled  the  land  with  clamor 
and  angry  dispute,  and  that  their  adoption  by  Congress 
led  to  violence,  bloodshejl,  and  war  ;  but  can  we  conclude 
that  he  had  any  conception  whatsoever  that  this  could  be 
the  result  of  them  ?  Is  it  not  far  more  probable  that 
he  thought  the  quiet  of  the  country  would  be  confirmed 
and  forever  established  by  their  general  acceptance  ? 
There  is  certainly  ground  for  this  view  of  his  motives. 
It  is  certainly  very  improbable  that  there  was  ever  any 
balancing,  in  his  mind,  of  risks  to  his  country's  peace 


386  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

and  safety  against  his  ambition  for  the  presidency.  It 
is  much  more  probable  that  he  believed  his  principles, 
without  his  presidency,  would  contribute,  in  high  degree, 
to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  his  country,  but  that,  taken 
together  with  his  presidency,  they  would  shed  untold 
blessings  upon  the  land.  This  is  no  unusual  psychology. 
It  is  decidedly  common. 

Mr.  Douglas  did  not,  however,  insert  his  doctrine  of 

popular  sovereignty  in  the  Territories,  and  his  dictum 

as  to  the  repeal  of  the  slavery  prohibition  in 

trines  of  the  the  Act  of  1820  by  the  principles  of  the  Acts 

report  at  first       •   «n-n     •       ,1        i  -n         V,        -i  -i       i        ,1 

not  inserted  in  oi  18oO,  in  the  bill.  rossibly  he  thought 
it  unnecessary.  Possibly  he  did  not  venture 
to  do  so.  Possibly  he  did  intend  to  leave  things  in  such 
an  ambiguous  shape  that  one  interpretation  might  be 
put  upon  them  in  one  section,  and  a  somewhat  different 
one  in  another.  He  would  hardly  have  been  an  Ameri 
can  politician  if  he  had  not,  at  some  time  or  other  in 
his  life,  practised  something  of  this  kind.  This  is  what 
they  call  feeling  the  public  pulse,  which  is  a  main  point 
in  the  practice  of  democratic  statesmanship.  It  is  not 
particularly  edifying  to  the  academic  statesman,  but  it 
is  business,  and  Americans  are  a  business  people.  Mr. 
Douglas  simply  modelled  the  bill  after  the  Utah  and 
New  Mexico  bills,  in  respect  to  slavery,  that  is,  he  made 
no  mention  of  the  subject  in  that  part  of  the  bill  which 
provided  for  the  Territorial  period,  but  added  a  clause 
which  read  :  (<  When  admitted  as  a  State,  the  said  Ter 
ritory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same,  shall  be  received  into 
the  Union,  with  or  without  slavery,  as  its  Constitution 
may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  its  admission." 

Taken  apart  from  the  report,  the  bill  might  be  inter 
preted  as  not  in  conflict  with  the  Act  of  1820,  but  taken 
with  the  report,  it  meant  the  repeal  of  the  Act  of  1820, 
and  the  attribution  of  all  power  over  the  question  of 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE      387 

slavery  in  the  Territory  to  those  who  might  squat  upon 
its  soil.  Of  course  it  was  entirely  within  the  power  of 
Congress  to  repeal  the  Act  of  1820.  The  re-  The  report 
straints  resting  upon  Congress  in  regard  to  J^^1^: 
this  matter  were  moral,  not  legal.  If  Con-  ETwttfctte 
gress  would,  nevertheless,  do  it,  it  must  do  it 
in  the  form  of  a  statute,  and  not  in  that  of  a  report 
doubting  the  constitutionality  of  the  Act,  or  even  de 
claring  it  unconstitutional.  It  was  entirely  natural  that 
the  demand  should  be  made  for  clearing  the  bill  of  its 
ambiguities. 

Before  the  demand  came,  however,  the  committee 
itself  did  something  in  this  direction.  When  the  bill 
was  printed,  on  January  7th,  it  contained  The  new 
twenty  sections.  '  On  the  10th,  a  revised  edi-  eection- 
tion  of  it  appeared,  which  contained  twenty-one  sec 
tions.  The  last  section  was  the  dictum  of  the  report  in 
regard  to  the  principles  of  the  Measures  of  1850  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  The  com 
mittee  explained  that  it  had  been  left  out  of  the  first 
draft  by  a  clerical  error.  This  change  did  not,  how 
ever,  clear  the  bill  of  all  ambiguity.  The  added  pro 
vision  was  declaratory  only,  and  did  not  expressly  repeal 
the  Act  of  1820. 

At  length,  on  the  16th,  Mr.  Dixon,  of  Kentucky, 
gave  notice  to  the  Senate  that  he  should  Mr  Dixon,s 
move,  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  a  pro-  proposed 
vision  expressly  repealing  the  Act  of  1820  in 
so  far  as  it  prohibited  slavery  in  any  of  the  Territories 
of  the  United  States. 

In  a  letter  of  May  17th,  1873,  to  Mr.  Gideon  Welles, 
Mr.  Montgomery  Blair  wrote  of  Mr.  Seward  :  "I  shall 
never  forget  how  shocked  I  was  at  his  telling  me  that  he 
was  the  man  who  put  Archy  Dixon,  the  Whig  Senator 
from  Kentucky  in  1854,  up  to  moving  the  repeal  of  the 


388  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Missouri  compromise,  as  an  amendment  to  Douglas's  first 
Kansas  [Nebraska  ?]  bill,  and  had  himself  forced  the  re- 

Mr   Blair's  Pea^  ^J  ^ia^  movemen^  an(^  na(i  thus  brought 

party.     Dixon  was  to 


-  out-Herod  Herod  at  the  South,  and  he  was  to 

nectiou  with  ,    TT         -.   TT         ,       ,,,       .,T      ,,     „ 

Dixon's  prop-  out-Herod  Herod  at  the  JNorth. 

If  this  be  true,  it  was  a  most  reprehensible 
trick  of  unscrupulous  politics.  Mr.  Seward  scoffed  at 
the  doctrine  of  "popular  sovereignty"  in  the  Territories 
as  arrant  nonsense,  and  knew  that  the  assertion  of  any 
such  doctrine  as  a  principle  of  the  law  of  the  country  in 
respect  to  Territorial  organization  would  rouse  the  North 
to  angry  and  bitter  resistance.  What  he  did,  he  did 
with  his  eyes  open.  His  vision  did  not  probably  reach 
so  far  as  to  civil  war,  but  he  knew  that  the  risks  of  an 
other  slavery  agitation  were  very  grave.  Neither  could 
the  ambiguity  in  Mr.  Douglas's  bill,  and  the  necessity 
for  relieving  it  of  this  obscurity,  palliate  such  an  offense. 
If  he  desired  to  make  Mr.  Douglas's  bill  entirely  plain 
he  should  have  done  this,  not  by  holding  out  a  tempta 
tion  to  the  South  to  enter  upon  a  new  course  of  slavery 
extension,  but  by  an  amendment  asserting  the  continu 
ing  validity  of  the  slavery  prohibition  in  the  Act  of  1820. 
Mr.  Sumner  did  this  very  thing  on  the  next  day.  It 
was,  however,  too  late  to  chain  the  spirit  which  Dixon's 
fatal  move  had  loosed. 

It  is  said  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  surprised  and  discon 
certed  by  Mr.  Dixon's  notice,  and  endeavored  to  dis- 
Dougias  suade  him  from  carrying  out  his  expressed 
and  Dixon.  intention,  but  was  finally  convinced  by  Mr. 
Dixon  that  the  proposed  amendment  was  only  the  fair 
and  honest  statement  of  constitutional  principles,  and 
of  the  legal  results  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  only 
made  distinct  and  express  what  was  unclear,  though  im 
plied,  in  the  bill. 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE       389 

On  the  23rd,  Mr.  Douglas  brought  in  a  new  bill,  and 
offered  it  as  a  substitute  for  the  original  bill.  The  new 
bill  contained  a  clause  declaring  that  that  Mr.  D(rag_ 
part  of  the  Act  of  1820  prohibiting  slavery  las's  new  bi"- 
in  the  Louisiana  territory  above  thirty-six  degrees  and 
thirty  minutes  was  inoperative,  being  contrary  to,  and 
superseded  by,  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  1850. 
Mr.  Douglas's  new  bill  changed  the  southern  boundary 
from  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  to  thirty- 
seven  degrees,  made  the  northern  boundary  run  up  to 
the  forty-ninth  parallel  west  of  Minnesota  Territory, 
and  cut  this  vast  domain  of  nearly  five  hundred  thou 
sand  square  miles  in  area  into  two  Territories  by  the  for 
tieth  parallel  of  latitude,  the  one  to  the  north  of  it  to 
be  called  Nebraska,  and  the  one  to  the  south  of  it  Kan 
sas.  Mr.  Dixon  immediately  expressed  himself  as  satis 
fied  with  the  provisions  of  the  new  bill,  and  said  that 
they  fulfilled  the  purposes  of  the  amendment  which  he 
had  intended  to  offer,  and  that  he  should,  therefore, 
withhold  the  same.  The  Senate  agreed  to  take  up  the 
bill  on  the  following  Monday. 

On  the  same  day  that  Mr.  Douglas  presented  this  sec 
ond  bill,  there  appeared  in  the  National  Era,  the  Abo 
lition  journal  at  Washington,  and  in  several  The  Free- 
New  York  City  papers,  the  noted  address,  agaPnst  the 
signed  by  Messrs.  Chase,  Snmner,  AVade,  b"L 
Smith,  and  De  Witt,  in  which  the  Douglas  bill  was  de 
nounced  in  the  most  trenchant  language  as  "  a  gross 
violation  of  a  sacred  pledge,  as  a  criminal  betrayal  of 
precious  rights,  as  a  part  and  parcel  of  an  atrocious 
plot  to  exclude  from  a  vast  unoccupied  region  immi 
grants  from  the  Old  World  and  free  laborers  from  our 
own  States,  and  convert  it  into  a  dreary  region  of  des 
potism  inhabited  by  masters  and  slaves."  The  contents 
of  this  celebrated  paper  constituted,  it  may  be  said,  the 


390  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

first  draft  of  the  creed  of  the  party  to  be  founded  on  the 
doctrine  of  resistance  to  slavery  extension,  the  Kepubli- 
can  party.  The  propositions  contained  in  it  drove  Mr. 
Mr  DOU<*  Douglas  to  a  fierce  diatribe  against  their 
las's  'reply  to  authors,  in  which  he  included  an  elaborate 
argument  in  defence  of  his  dictum,  that  the 
Measures  of  1850  had  rendered  the  slavery  prohibition 
in  the  Act  of  1820  inoperative.  He  contended  that  the 
fact  that  Congress  had,  in  the  joint  resolution  admitting 
Texas,  provided  that  in  Texan  territory  north  of  the  line 
of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  slavery  should 
be  prohibited,  proved  that  Congress  and  the  people  of 
the  United  States  understood  the  legislation  of  1820  to 
mean  that  the  line  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  min 
utes  was  to  be  run  through  any  and  all  territory  that 
might  be  subsequently  acquired  by  the  United  States ; 
that  the  refusal  of  Congress  to  do  this  in  regard  to  the 
territory  acquired  from  Mexico  had  made  the  establish 
ment  of  a  new  principle  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the  Ter 
ritories  necessary  ;  that  that  principle,  as  established  by 
the  legislation  of  1850,  was  the  neutrality  of  Congress 
in  the  question,  and  the  right  of  the  residents  in  each 
Territory  to  settle  the  question  for  themselves  :  and  that 
this  new  principle  had  superseded  the  old  principle  and 
rendered  all  legislation  under  the  old  principle  inopera 
tive. 

Such  jurisprudence  in  respect  to  the  effect  upon  each 
other  of  statutes  relating  to  different  and  distinct  Terri 
tories  had  never  been  heard  before,  and  it  was  easy  to 
show  it  to  be  a  tissue  of  sophistries  from  beginning  to 
end.  It  was  entirely  evident  that  Mr.  Douglas  and  his 
committee  shrank  from  proposing  a  bare  and  bald  repeal 
of  the  slavery  prohibition  in  the  Act  of  1820,  and  sought 
to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  doing  so  under  the  con 
venient  claim  that  it  had  already  been  repealed.  But 


KEPEAL   OF  THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE      391 

Mr.  Chase  was  determined  to  make  them  take  this  re 
sponsibility,  and  to  expose  their  fallacies  in  their  at 
tempts  to  escape  it.  On  February  3rd,  Mr.  Chase 
moved  to  remove  from  the  bill  the  words  re 
ferring  to  the  Measures  of  1850,  and  their  amendment 
effect  upon  the  Act  of  1820,  and  make  the  bill  t 
simply  repeal  the  slavery  prohibition  of  the  Act  of  1820, 
in  so  far  as  it  applied  to  the  Territories  to  be  organized 
by  the  bill.  Mr.  Chase  supported  his  amendment  in  a 
powerful  speech,  in  which  he  demonstrated  most  clearly 
the  fallacy  and  the  duplicity  of  the  doctrine  which  held 
that  the  legislation  of  1850  in  regard  to  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  had  repealed  the  legislation  of  1820  in  regard 
to  the  Louisiana  territory  north  of  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes.  Both  he  and  his  colleague,  Mr. 
Wade,  went,  however,  too  far  in  denouncing  the  subter 
fuge  as  a  conspiracy  between  the  Southerners  and  the 
friends  of  Douglas  to  extend  slavery.  It  was  especially 
imprudent,  to  say  the  least,  in  Mr.  Wade  to  do  so.  The 
Southern  Whigs  were  highly  incensed  at  the  charge  of 
conspiring  with  Northern  Democrats,  made  The  gouth. 
by  one  of  their  own  party,  and  they  repudi-  JJo^Yf 8 
ated  the  accusation  with  great  earnestness.  Mr.  wade's 
Besides  this,  the  Douglas  idea  of  popular 
sovereignty,  or,  as  we  now  call  it,  home  rule,  in  the  Ter 
ritories,  had  won  many  adherents.  There  is  no  question 
that  a  great  many  men,  in  both  the  North  and  the  South, 
now  began  to  feel  that  Mr.  Douglas  had  discovered  the 
true  principle  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the  Ter-  T^  Doug. 
ritories.  Mr.  Chase's  amendment  was  lost  by  ionvinSng1  to 
a  vote  of  thirty  to  thirteen.  The  thirteen  vot-  many- 
ing  in  favor  of  the  amendment  were  all  from  the  North. 
Of  those  voting  against  it,  ten  were  from  the  North, 
and  twenty  from  the  South.  Nineteen  Senators,  ten  of 
whom  were  from  the  South,  did  not  vote  at  all.  The 


392  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

vote  meant  that  the  large  majority  of  those  voting  held 
that,  in  some  way  or  other,  the  legislation  of  1850  had 

Mr  chase's  rePea^e(^  the  slavery  prohibition  in  the  legis- 
amendment  lation  of  1830.  This  was  execrable  juris 
prudence,  and  even  Mr.  Cass,  who  was  real 
ly  the  father  of  the  idea  of  home  rule  in  the  Territories, 
dissented  from  it,  and  voted  for  Mr.  Chase's  amendment. 
In  spite  of  this  support  by  the  majority,  Mr.  Douglas 
was  apparently  disquieted  by  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Cass, 

Mr  Doug-  anc^  by  the  arguments  against  the  correctness 
chang!  inathe  of  llis  Doctrine.  He»  himself,  now  moved  to 
wording  of  strike  out  of  the  bill  the  words  :  "  which  was 

the  clause.  . 

superseded  by  the  principles  ol  the  legisla 
tion  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  Compromise  Meas 
ures,  and  is  hereby  declared  inoperative/'  and  to  insert 
instead  thereof  the  words  :  "which  being  inconsistent 
with  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  as  recognized  by 
the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  Com 
promise  Measures,  is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and 
void,  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  Act 
not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor 
exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States." 

In  a  most  able  argument,  remarkable  both  for  its 
strong  logic  and  its  admirable  temper,  Mr.  Everett  dem- 
Mr.  Ever-  onstrated  the  weakness  of  Mr.  Douglas's 
ett's  views.  proposition  in  its  last  form,  the  declaration 
of  inconsistency  between  the  legislation  of  1820  and 
that  of  1850.  He  showed  conclusively  that,  in  place  of 
an  inconsistency,  here  were  simply  two  policies  in  refer 
ence  to  different  Territories,  in  which  different  condi 
tions  and  relations  obtained.  He  predicted  that  the 


Mr.     Hous- 


REPEAL    OF   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE       393 

insistence  upon  the  same  policy  for  all  the  Territories 
would  lead  to  the  struggle  for  determining  whether  they 
should  be  all  slave  or  all  free,,  and  he  demonstrated  that 
popular  sovereignty  in  the  Territories  was  an  illusion, 
since  Congress  could  not  by  any  act  of  its  own  divest 
itself  of  its  duty,  laid  upon  it  by  the  Constitution,  to 
legislate  for  the  Territories.  Mr.  Everett  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  committee  on  Territories,  from  which  the 
bill  had  proceeded,  and  his  views  should,  on  this  account, 
have  possessed  an  added  weight. 

Mr.  Houston,  of  Texas,  another  member  of  the  com 
mittee,  now  declared  himself  against  the  bill, 

j_i      i.  -A 

on  the  ground,  among  other  reasons,  that  it  ton's 
would  reopen  the  slavery  question  by  the  de-  fci 
struction  of  one  of  the  great  measures  upon  which  the 
settlement  of  that  question  rested. 

It  was  furthermore  suspected  that  Mr.  Bell,  of  Ten 
nessee,  another  member  of  the  committee,  was  opposed 
to  the  bill.  This  suspicion  turned  out  to  be  Mr  BelPs 
true.  The  bill  can  hardly  be  regarded  there- 
fore  as  having  been  reported  by  the  com 
mittee  at  all.  The  committee  consisted  of  six  Senators, 
and  it  was  at  last  found  that  it  had,  at  no  time,  received 
the  support  of  more  than  three.  Of  these  three,  two 
were  from  the  North,  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  and  Jones,  of 
Iowa,  and  one  was  from  the  South,  Johnson,  of  Arkansas. 

The  vote  upon  this  amendment  was  taken  on  February 
15th.  Thirty-five  Senators  voted  for  it,,  and  ten  against 
it.  Of  those  voting  for  it,  twenty-four  were  Mr.  Doug  - 
from  the  North  and  eleven  from  the  South.  £8e'n8ta  ™aesnsedd 
Of  those  voting  against  it,  nine  were  from  by  the  senate. 
the  North  and  one,  Mr.  Houston,  was  from  the  South. 
Mr.  Bell  voted  for  the  amendment  for  the  reason,  as  he 
afterwards  explained,  that  he  thought  Mr.  Douglas 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  perfect  his  bill. 


394  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Mr.  Chase  now  suspected  that  there  might  be  some 
catch  concealed  in  the  last  words  of  the  amendment 

Mr.  chase's  3ust  adopted.  These  words,  it  will  be 
second  amend-  remembered,  were  :  "  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States."  Mr. 
Chase,  therefore,  moved  to  add  the  words  :  "  under 
which  the  people  of  the  Territory,  through  their  appro 
priate  representatives,  may,  if  they  see  fit,  prohibit  the 
existence  of  slavery  therein."  Mr.  Chase  now  put  the 
home-rule  principle  in  regard  to  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  to  the  test,  for  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  could 
not,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  pro 
hibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  then  was  the  Douglas 
doctrine  a  mere  deception,  a  mere-  jugglery  of  words. 
Mr.  Chase  put  his  proposition,  however,  in  a  form  which 

Mr.  Pratt's  appeared  one-sided,  and  Mr.  Badger,  of 
M^H^e's  North  Carolina,  the  best  constitutional  law- 
amendment.  ver  from  the  South  in  the  Senate,  contended 
that  Mr.  Chase's  amendment  would  have  the  effect  of 
denying  to  the  Territories  the  power  to  admit  slavery, 
and  thus  destroy,  from  that  side,  the  home-rule  princi 
ple  of  the  bill.  To  remedy  this  defect,  Mr.  Pratt  moved 
to  amend  Mr.  Chase's  proposition  so  as  to  make  it  read 
that  the  people  might  introduce  or  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  Territories.  But  this  was  an  amendment  to  Mr. 
Chase's  amendment  to  Mr.  Douglas's  amendment,  and 
was  held  to  be  unparliamentary,  unless  Mr.  Chase  would 
accept  it,  and  incorporate  it  into  his  amendment.  This 
he  refused  to  do,  on  the  ground,  first,  that  he  did  not  be 
lieve  that  the  Territories  could,  under  the  Constitution, 
introduce  slavery,  and,  second,  on  the  ground  that  the 
union  of  his  proposition  and  that  of  Mr.  Pratt  in  a  single 
amendment  would  unite  those  who  did  not  believe  that 
the  people  of  a  Territory  could  introduce  slavery  with 
those  who  did  not  believe  they  could  prohibit  slavery 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE       395 

against  the  entire  amendment,  and  probably  defeat  it, 
while,  if  the  two  propositions  could  be  voted  on  sepa 
rately,  they  would  both  probably  pass,  and  the  bill  would 
be  cleared  of  all  ambiguity. 

Mr.  Chase's  attitude  toward  Mr.  Pratt's  motion  com 
pelled  the  Senate  to  vote  upon  his  proposition  Mr  Chase,g 
separately,  and  the  amendment  was  lost  by  amendment 
a  vote  of  thirty-six  to  ten. 

Just  before  the  close  of  the  debate  on  Mr.  Chase's 
motion,  Mr.  Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  startled  the  Senate 
by  the  declaration  that  the  repeal  of  the  Mr  Bad. 
Act  of  1820  prohibiting  slavery  would  re-  ge£s  amend- 
vive  the  old  French  law  legitimizing  slavery 
in  all  of  the  territory  acquired  from  France.  Both  Mr. 
Benjamin  and  Mr.  Badger  said  it  would  not  have  that 
effect,  but  on  different  grounds.  In  order  to  quiet  ap 
prehension  on  this  point,  and  remove  the  difficulty  out 
of  the  way  of  the  passage  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Badger  gave 
notice  that  so  soon  as  the  vote  should  be  taken  on  Mr. 
Chase's  motion,  he  should  move  an  amendment  to  the 
bill  providing  that  "  nothing  contained  in  this  Act 
shall  be  construed  to  revive  or  put  in  force  any  law  or 
regulation,  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  1820,  either 
protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or  abolishing  sla 
very."  After  the  vote  upon  Mr.  Chase's  motion,  Mr. 
Badger  offered  this  amendment,  and  it  was  voted,  with 
out  debate,  by  a  very  large  majority. 

Mr.  Chase  now  turned  his  assaults  upon  other  points 
of  the  bill.  Mr.  Douglas  had  been  impressed  by  the 
taunts  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  that  Mr  Chase,s 
home  rule  was  to  be  granted  to  the  people  third  amend- 
of  the  Territories  only  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery,  but  that  they  were  to  continue  in  all  other  re 
spects  subject  to  the  control  of  the  general  Government, 
and  he  now  moved  to  strike  out  the  veto  power  of  Con- 


396  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

gress  over  Territorial  legislation,  in  the  cases  in  hand, 
and  to  so  modify  the  usual  veto  power  of  the  Territorial 
governors  as  to  allow  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  Terri 
torial  legislatures  to  overcome  it.  These  propositions 
were  voted  without  debate.  AVhereupon  Mr.  Chase 
moved  that  the  governors,  secretaries,  and  judges  of  the 
two  Territories  be  elected  by  the  people  instead  of  being 
appointed  by  the  President.  This  was  logical,  but  it 
made  the  "squatter-sovereignty"  doctrine  ridiculous. 
It  was,  therefore,  rejected  with  a  considerable  show  of 
spirit. 

Mr.  Chase  now  moved  that  the  whole  country  should 

be  organized  as  one  Territory  instead  of  two.   He  seemed 

Mr  chase's  *°  anticipate  that  if  two  should  be  established 

fourth  amend-  at   the   same  time,    the  slaveholders   would 

meiit. 

claim  one.  This  proved  to  be  a  correct  sus 
picion.  It  was  subsequently  declared  throughout  the 
South  that  the  purpose  in  forming  two  Territories 
was  to  give  one  to  the  North  and  the  other  to  the  South. 
And  when  the  North  made  the  fight  for  Kansas,  it  was 
really  felt  in  the  South  by  the  mass  of  the  people  that  a 
tacit  agreement  had  been  violated.  The  Senators  in 
favor  of  the  bill  had  now  come  to  think  that  Mr.  Chase 
was  simply  endeavoring  to  discredit  the  bill,  and  they 
quickly  voted  this  motion  down  by  a  large  majority. 

Down  to  this  juncture,  the  bill  had  been  considered  in 

the  Senate  as  a  committee  of  the  Whole.     It  was  now 

Mr.  Beirs  reported  to  the  Senate  as  amended  by  this 

agf  iUnSethe  committee,  and,  on  March  3rd,  it  came  to  the 

vote  upon  its  final  passage.  It  was  at  this 
point  that  Mr.  Bell  revealed  his  opposition  to  the  bill, 
and  made  his  great  argument,  the  greatest  effort  of  his 
long  and  useful  life,  against  it.  The  speech  was  chiefly 
a  logical  and  an  eloquent  elaboration  of  the  three  propo 
sitions,  that  popular  sovereignty  could  not  be  estab- 


EEPEAL   OF  THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE       397 

lished  in  the  Territories  by  an  Act  of  Congress,  that  the 
passage  of  the  bill  before  the  Senate  attempting  it  would 
produce  a  vast  development  of  the  anti-slavery  senti 
ment  at  the  North,  and  that  no  practical  benefits  what 
soever  could  accrue  to  the  South  by  the  repeal  of  the 
restriction  upon  slavery  extension  in  the  Act  of  1820. 
But  the  Southerners  would  not  listen  to  these  words  of 
wisdom  from  their  own  greatest  colleague. 

Mr.  Douglas  is  generally  represented  as  having  closed 
the  debate,  although  Mr.  Houston  spoke  briefly  after 
him  in  opposition  to  the  measure.    Mr.  Doug- 
las's  argument  was  masterful  from  every  point  las's  final  ar- 

„      .         ,      .    ,,       ,  .    ,  TT.        i  •    /»  '      gument. 

of  view  but  the  highest.  His  chief  proposi 
tion  was,  that,  when  his  committee  were  charged  with  the 
duty  of  framing  the  bill,  they  were  forced  to  choose  be 
tween  the  principle  of  Congressional  intervention  in  the 
Territories,  in  the  matter  of  slavery,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
principle  of  1820,  the  principle  which  had,  for  thirty 
years,  filled  the  land  with  agitation  and  conflict,  and  had 
been  a  standing  menace  to  the  existence  of  the  Union, 
and  the  principle  of  Congressional  non-intervention,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  principle  of  the  Measures  of  1850, 
the  principle  which  had  tranquillized  the  country  and 
cemented  anew  the  Union,  the  principle  which  both  of 
the  two  great  political  parties  had  unequivocally  ap 
proved  in  their  platforms  of  1852,  and  which  the  people 
of  the  whole  country  had  just  as  unequivocally  approved 
in  the  elections  of  1852.  And  his  conclusion  from  this 
proposition  was,  that,  as  servants  of  the  people  who  had 
established  this  principle  of  Congressional  non-interven 
tion,  his  committee  were  morally  obligated  to  make  it 
the  principle  of  the  bill  presented  by  them  for  the  or 
ganization  of  the  new  Territories,  and  that  whoever  ar 
raigned  him  and  his  committee  for  so  doing  virtually 
arraigned  the  people  of  the  United  States.  It  was  a 


398,  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

most  excellent  and  refined  bit  of  demagogy,  and  it  fell 
upon  an  audience  whose  mental  niveau  was  not  quite 
high  enough  to  distinguish  between  it  and  sound  reason 
ing.  He  enforced  this  argument  by  another  piece  of 
catching  demagogism,  which,  though  not  quite  so  re 
fined,  .was  equally  effective.  It  was  the  proud  and  boast 
ful  assertion  that  American  citizens  were  capable  of  self- 
government  anywhere,  whether  in  "  States"  or  Terri 
tories,  and  under  all  conditions,  whether  aided  by  long 
established  customs,  or  without  any  such  guides  to  steady 
them  in  their  progress.  It  was  evident  that  his  oppo 
nents  preferred  to  avoid  this  point,  and  that  he  was  sure 
he  had  them  upon  it.  He  was  so  thoroughly  democratic 
in  his  own  feelings  that  he  entertained  no  doubt  as  to 
the  triumph  of  his  argument  when  stated  in  this  form. 

A  few  minutes  before  five  o'clock  on  the  morning  of 
March  4th,  after  a  continuous  session  of  seventeen  hours, 
The  passage  the  vote  upon  the  bill  was  taken,  resulting  in 
NebraekTwii  thirty-seven  voices  in  its  favor  and  fourteen 
by  the  senate.  against  it.  Eleven  Senators  had  not  voted. 
Of  these,  three  sent  word  that,  if  they  could  have  been 
present,  they  would  have  voted  for  the  bill,  and  one  that 
he  would  have  voted  against  it.  There  were  also  two 
vacancies  at  the  moment,  one  in  the  Vermont  delegation, 
and  one  in  that  of  North  Carolina.  This  reduced  the 
number  of  those  who  actually  refrained  from  voting, 
though  present,  to  five.  These  gentlemen  were  Mr. 
Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Wright,  of  New  Jersey, 
Mr.  Cooper,  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Clayton,  of  Delaware, 
and  Mr.  Pearce,  of  Maryland,  all  Whigs  with  the  excep 
tion  of  Mr.  Wright. 

Counting  the  names  of  those  who  announced  how  they 
would  have  voted  had  they  been  able  to  be  present,  and 
considering  the  Commonwealths  in  whose  delegations 
there  were  vacancies  as  represented  fully  by  the  one 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE      399 

member  from  each,  we  may  say  that,  in  the  Senate,  New 
Hampshire,  Michigan,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Califor 
nia,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  North  Car- 


olina,  Arkansas,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  the  vote  upon 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Florida,  and  Louis 
iana  voted  for  the  bill  ;  that  Maine,  Vermont,  Rhode 
Island,  New  York,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin  voted  against 
the  bill  ;  that  Connecticut,  Tennessee,  and  Texas  were 
divided  ;  and  that  Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl 
vania,  Delaware,  and  Marj'land  were  doubtful.  Not  a 
single  Northern  Whig  voted  for  the  bill,  and  only  two 
Northern  Whigs  failed  to  vote  against  it.  One  Southern 
Whig,  Mr.  Bell,  voted  against  it,  and  two  Southern 
Whigs,  Mr.  Clayton  and  Mr.  Pearce,  failed  to  vote  for  it. 
Every  Southern  Democrat,  except  only  Mr.  Houston, 
voted  for  the  bill,  while,  even  if  we  count  Mr.  Chase 
and  Mr.  Sumner  as  Democrats,  only  six  Northern 
Democrats  voted  against  it.  The  bill  may  thus  be 
fairly  considered  to  have  been  a  Western  and  Southern 
measure,  and  a  Democratic  measure.  The  Western 
Democracy,  with  its  crude  and  radical  notions  about 
local  self-government,  invited  the  South  into  a  posi 
tion  which  turned  out  to  be  a  snare  and  a  pitfall.  It 
is  not  meant  by  this  that  the  Western  Democracy  was 
insincere,  but  only  that  it  was  crude  and  vulgarly  over 
self-confident.  And  it  is  not  meant  that  the  South  was 
insincercr,  but  only  too  eager  to  vindicate  its  honor  and 
dignity,  by  obliterating  the  inequality  with  the  North 
in  regard  to  the  common  territory  of  the  Union,  under 
which  it  fancied  it  Tiad  suifered  since  the  restriction 
placed  upon  slavery  extension  by  the  Act  of  1820. 

If  the  bill  had  been  subjected  to  the  plebiscite  on 
February  1st,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  people  in  the 
Northern  Commonwealths  would  have  sustained  the  po 
sitions  taken  by  their  respective  Senators.  Had  this  been 


400  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

done  on  March  1st,  it  is  probable  that  this  would  not  have 
been  the  case  in  some  of  the  Northern  Commonwealths, 
Develop-  whose  Senators  voted  for  the  measure.  And 
KppoSn  had  it  been  done  on  April  1st,  it  is  practi- 
to  the  MIL  ca]jy  certain  that  it  would  not  have  been. 
After  February  1st,  there  was  developed  throughout  the 
North  a  very  strong  opposition  to  the  bill  among  the  peo 
ple.  The  most  influential  newspapers  denounced  it. 
Numerous  meetings,  largely  attended,  protested  against 
it.  The  legislatures  of  several  of  the  Commonwealths 
passed  resolutions  condemning  it.  And  the  clergy  gen 
erally  arraigned  it  as  immoral,  inhuman,  and  irreligious. 
The  movements  against  it  seem  to  have  been  sponta 
neous  and  to  have  been  connected  with  each  other  only 
by  the  common  sentiment  against  the  extension  of  sla 
very.  It  is,  however,  probable  that  the  Address  to  the 
people,  issued  by  Mr.  Chase  and  his  Free-soil  friends  in 
the  latter  part  of  January,  furnished  the  necessary  ex 
citant.  The  Address  seems  to  have  been  the  text  from 
which  most  of  these  articles,  protests,  memorials, 
speeches,  and  sermons  were  drawn.  When  the  bill  was 
sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  it  was  thus  evident 
to  all  impartial  observers  that  its  growing  unpopularity 
at  the  North  would  be  a  very  great  obstacle  to  its  passage 
by  the  House.  Its  friends  felt  that  they  must  get  it 
through  speedily  or  see  it  lost  altogether. 

Already,  on  January  31st,  Mr.  Richardson,  of  Illinois, 
Mr.  Douglas's  lieutenant  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  had  reported  from  the  House  committee  on  Ter 
ritories  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  which  was  the  same  in  substance 
and  language  as  that  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas  to  the 
Senate.  It  had  been  discussed  a  little  in  the  committee 
of  the  Whole  House,  but  had  slumbered  there  after 
February  loth. 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI   COMPROMISE       401 

On  March  7th,  the  Senate  bill  was  sent  into  the 
House  for  concurrence.  It  was  taken  up  for  considera 
tion  on  the  twenty-first,  and,  after  some  par-  The  Kansag. 
liamentary  passes,  was  referred  to  the  House  g6^^™1 
committee  on  Territories. 

Some  of  the  historians  teach  that  this  would  have 
been  the  end  of  the  bill,  except  for  the  interference  of 
President  Pierce  and  his  two  most  trusted  The  relation 
advisers,  Mr.  Caleb  Gushing  and  Mr.  Jeffer-  •Lttitn'To 
son  Davis.  Mr.  Davis  relates  his  connec-  thebllL 
tion  with  the  matter  in  his  own  book.  He  says  that,  on 
Sunday  morning,  January  22nd,  gentlemen  from  the 
two  Congressional  committees  011  Territories  called  at 
his  house  and  asked  his  aid  in  obtaining  an  interview 
with  the  President ;  that  he  went  with  them  to  the 
executive  mansion,  and  secured  for  them  the  desired 
access  to  the  President ;  that  the  President  listened 
patiently  to  the  reading  of  the  bill  for  organizing  Kan 
sas  and  Nebraska  ;  and  that  the  President  decided  that 
the  bill  "  rested  upon  sound  constitutional  principles, 
and  recognized  in  it  only  a  return  to  that  rule  which 
had  been  infringed  by  the  Compromise  of  1820,  and  the 
restoration  of  which  had  been  foreshadowed  by  the 
legislation  of  1850."  Mr.  Davis  furthermore  specif 
ically  denies  that  the  measure  was  inspired  by  Presi 
dent  Pierce  or  any  member  of  his  Cabinet.  Of  course, 
though  not  inspired,  it  may  have  been  aided  on  the  way 
of  its  passage  through  Congress  by  the  Administration. 
The  proof  upon  which  these  historians  chiefly  rely,  in 
their  assertion  that  it  was  so  aided,  was  the  fact  that  the 
editorials  in  the  Washington  Union  supported  the  bill, 
and  the  claim  that  this  paper  was  the  organ  of  the 
Administration.  But  Mr.  Sidney  Webster,  President 
Pierce's  private  secretary  at  the  time,  has  recently  de 
clared  that  the  Washington  Union  was  not  President 


402  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Piercers  organ  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  matter,  or  in  any 
other  matter  ;  that  President  Pierce  had  no  organ. 

The  character  of  President  Pierce  was  that  of  a  punc 
tilious  gentleman.  Mr.  Davis  resembled  him  much  in 
President  ^s  general  trait.  In  fact,  it  was  said  to  have 
pierce andMr.  been  this  likeness  which  drew  them  so  closely 
together  in  their  friendship  for  each  other. 
Men  of  such  character  are  not  inclined  to  meddle,  and 
a  strong  positive  evidence  is  necessary  to  substantiate 
any  such  charge  against  them.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  President's  view  of  the  doctrine  of  the  bill 
was  well  known.  There  is  no  doubt  that  there  were 
members  of  Congress  who  made  a  chief  point  of  coin 
ciding  with  the  Administration  upon  every  subject, 
and  who  thought  that  such  servility  would  give  weight 
to  their  recommendations  for  official  positions.  And 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  President  appointed  some 
persons  to  office  recommended  by  such  members.  But 
no  satisfactory  evidence  has  been  as  yet  produced 
to  prove  that  President  Pierce  gave  or  promised  any 
patronage  to  any  member  for  supporting  the  bill,  or 
withheld  any  to  punish  any  member  for  not  supporting 
it.  In  fact,  the  President's  attitude  toward  the  two  fac 
tions  of  the  Democratic  party  in  New  York  in  the  mat 
ter  of  appointments,  making  selections  from  both  in 
almost  equal  numbers,  without  regard  to  the  Free-soil 
sentiments  of  the  "  Softs,"  manifests  a  quite  different 
spirit  from  that  with  which  these  historians  represent 
him  to  have  been  animated  in  meddling  with  the  passage 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

And,  finally,  the  inconsistency  which  these  historians 
find  between  the  President's  message  of  December  pre 
ceding  and  his  attitude  toward  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
can  be  so  explained  as  to  appear  a  perfect  consistency. 
What  the  President  said  in  his  message  was  that  the  ac- 


EEPEAL   OF  THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE      403 

quiescence  of  distinguished  citizens  in  the  Compromise 
Measures  of  1850  had  given  renewed  vigor  to  our  institu 
tions,  and  restored  a  sense  of  repose  and  se-  ^^ 
curity  to  the  public  mind  throughout  the  dent's  consist- 
Union,  and  that  this  repose  should  suffer  no  ency' 
shock  during  his  official  term.  If,  now,  we  consider 
these  measures  of  1850  as  containing  the  principle  of 
home  rule  in  the  Territories  in  regard  to  the  question 
of  slavery,  and  if  we  attribute  the  repose  of  the  public 
mind  upon  this  subject  to  that  principle,  would  it 
not  be  maintaining  that  repose  to  apply  this  principle 
in  the  organization  of  the  new  Territories,  and  would 
it  not  be  destructive  of  that  repose  to  undertake  to  settle 
the  slavery  question  in  the  new  Territories  by  an  act  of 
Congress,  either  original  or  confirmatory  ?  This  view  is 
certainly  intelligible.  It  was  professed  and  advanced  by 
all  the  supporters  of  the  bill.  It  was  unquestionably 
the  view  which  the  President  took  of  the  matter.  It 
proved  to  be  an  erroneous  view,  but  the  views  which 
mortal  men  hold,  and  conscientiously  hold,  are  very 
frequently  erroneous. 

The  Senate  bill  slept  in  the  committee  of  the  Whole 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  March  21st  until 
May  8th.  During  this  period  its  friends  The  bi]1 
were  undoubtedly  working  for  it,  and  its  taken  up  in 

J  to  the  committee 

opponents  against   it.     By   the  latter    date  of  the  whole 

T       ,,  „    ,T         -i  MI    i  ji      ,     of  the  House 

the  leaders  in  tavor  01  the  bill  knew  that  of  Repreeen- 
they  had  a  reliable  majority  in  the  House, 
and,  on  that  day,  Mr.  Richardson  moved  that  the  House 
go  into  committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  up  the  House  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  for  consid 
eration.  After  much  parliamentary  fencing,  this  was 
accomplished.  Mr.  Richardson  then  proposed  to  sub 
stitute  the  Senate  bill,  shorn  of  the  provision  in  it 
confining  suffrage  and  office-holding  in  these  Territories 


404  THE   MIDDLE  PEKIOD 

to  American  citizens,  for  the  House  bill.  The  oppo 
nents  of  the  bill  now  entered  upon  a  course  of  obstruc 
tion,  and,  although  there  was  a  safe  majority  of  about 
twenty  in  favor  of  the  bill,  they  prevented  such  a  vote 
being  taken  in  the  committee  of  the  Whole,  as  would 
bring  the  matter  to  a  crisis,  for  about  two  weeks.  By 
this  time  Mr.  Richardson  seems  to  have  been  completely 

Mr.  A.  H.  demoralized,  and  Mr.  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
management  came  forward  and  took  the  management  of 
of  the  bill.  the  bill  into  his  own  hands.  He  moved  to 
strike  out  the  enacting  clause  of  the  House  bill.  Ac 
cording  to  the  rules  of  the  House,  this  motion  took  the 
precedence  of  all  motions  to  amend,  and  the  eifect  of  it 
would  be,  if  passed,  equivalent  to  the  rejection  of  the 
bill,  upon  the  happening  of  which  the  committee  must 
rise  and  report  its  action  to  the  House.  The  House 
could  then  refuse  to  concur  with  the  report  of  the  com 
mittee  of  the  Whole,  upon  the  happening  of  which  Mr. 
Eichardson  could  then  offer  the  Senate  bill,  as  a  substi 
tute,  in  the  House,  and  in  the  House  the  obstructive 
tactics  of  the  opposition  could  be  dealt  with  as  they  could 
not  be  in  the  committee  of  the  Whole.  Mr.  Stephens 
explained  his  tactics  to  the  committee,  in  order  that 
the  friends  of  the  bill  might  know  how  to  vote.  The 
opponents  of  the  bill  called  this  procedure  a  new  "gag," 
but  Mr.  Stephens  remained  firm,  and  drove  the  Senate 
bill  in  this  manner  through  the  House  by  a  vote  of  one 

The  bill  hundred  and  thirteen  to  one  hundred.  The 
SgS  by  the  Senate  concurred  in  the  omission  of  the  pro- 
President,  vision  limiting  suffrage  and  office-holding  in 
the  Territories  to  American  citizens  ;  and  the  President 
signed  the  bill,  on  May  30th. 

Eighty-seven  members  from  the  North,  of  whom 
forty-five  were  Whigs,  counting  the  Free-soilers  as  Whigs, 
and  forty-two  of  whom  were  Democrats,  voted  against 


REPEAL   OF   THE   MISSOURI    COMPROMISE       405 

the  bill ;  while  only  forty-four  members  from  the  North, 
all  Democrats,  voted  for  it.  Sixty-nine  members  from 
the  South,  of  whom  fifty-seven  were  Demo- 

,  TTTI  •  L    i      £  Analysis   of 

brats    and    twelve   were    Whigs,    voted    for  the  vote  on 
the  bill  ;  while  seven  Whigs  and  two  Demo-  Sous"1  iE 
crats  from  the  South  voted  against  it. 

These  figures  pretty  well  disposed  of  the  claim  that 
the  bill  was  a  tender  from  the  North  to  the  South.  It 
was  simply  a  Western  and  Southern  Demo-  what  the 
cratic  measure.  Taken  together  with  the  %™*  taught, 
vote  in  the  Senate,  these  figures  also  showed  that  the 
Whig  party  was  a  party  opposed  to  slavery  extension, 
unanimously  so  in  the  North,  'and  in  some  degree  in 
the  South.  They  revealed  that  the  Whig  party  in  the 
North  was  to  be  merged  in  a  Northern  party  with  the 
Free-soil  element  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  was  to 
be  overwhelmed  in  the  South  by  the  union  of  the  pro- 
slavery-extension  Whigs  with  the  Democrats.  They 
indicated  that  one  sectional  party  was  soon  to  hold  the 
majority  in  the  North,  and  another  in  the  South  ;  and 
gave  thus  the  fearful  warning  that  the  North  was,  at 
last,  to  be  arrayed  against  the  South  upon  the  subject 
which  was  of  greater  interest  to  the  South,  in  the 
minds  of  the  slaveholders,  than  the  Union  itself. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  present,  we  are  com 
pelled  to  regard  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act  as  probably  the  greatest  error  which 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ever  com- 
mitted,  and  the  arguments  by  which  it  was  fallacy- 
supported  as  among  the  most  specious  fallacies  that 
have  ever  misled  the  minds  of  men.  We  must  take 
this  ground,  unless  we  assume  that  we  could  not 
have  solved  the  slavery  problem  in  any  other  way  than 
we  did,  and  at  any  less  cost.  If  we  make  this  assump 
tion,  we  may  then  consider  this  Act  as  providential,  in 


406  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

that  it  precipitated  a  crisis,  which  was  bound  to  come, 
and  which  would  only  have  been  made  more  terrible  by 
delay.  While,  however,  we  of  the  succeeding  generation 
may  explain  the  place  of  this  Act  in  our  history  in  this 
way,  no  considerations  of  this  kind  can  justify  the  men 
who  produced  it,  and  placed  it  upon  the  statute-book. 
That  God  should  "make  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise 
him"  does  not  excuse  the  wrath  of  man. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE   STRUGGLE  FOR   KANSAS 

Eli  Thayer  and  His  Emigrant  Aid  Scheme— Reports  in  Regard  to 
its  Character  and  Purposes — The  Missouri  ''Border  Ruffian" 
of  1854— Nebraska  for  the  North  and  Kansas  for  the  South — 
General  Atchison— Dr.  Charles  Robinson— The  First  Party  of 
Emigrants — The  Platte  County  "  Self -defensive  Association  " — 
The  Founding  of  Lawrence— First  Invasion  of  the  Missouri- 
ails — Governor  A.  H.  Reeder — The  Second  Invasion  of  the 
Missourians  and  the  Election  of  the  Delegate  to  Congress — The 
Indignation  of  the  North— The  Republican  Party— The  Third 
Invasion  of  the  Missourians — Governor  Reeder  and  the  Terri 
torial  Elections — The  Organization  of  the  First  Legislature  of 
Kansas  Territory — The  Topeka  Constitution — The  Removal  of 
Governor  Reeder;  and  His  Election  as  Congressional  Delegate 
— Establishment  of  the  "  Free- state  "  Government— The  First 
Violence— The  "  Free-state  "  Government  and  the  Administra 
tion — The  New  Governor,  Shannon,  and  the  "  Law  and  Or 
der  "  Party — John  Brown — The  President's  Proclamation — 
^The  Congressional  Committee  to  the  Territory-application  for 
Admission — The  "Treason  Indictments" — The  Sacking  of 
Lawrence— The  Attack  on  Senator  Sumner — The  Pottawatto- 
mie  Massacres — The  Battle  at  Black  Jack — The  Governor's 
Proclamation,  Enforced  by  United  States  Soldiers-^The  Pas 
sage  of  the  Bill  for  the  Admission  of  Kansas  by  the  House — 
Dispersal  of  the  "  Free-state  "  Legislature  by  Colonel  Sumner 
— The  '4  Free-state  "  Directory — The  Treaty  of  August  17th — 
The  New  Invasion  from  Missouri — General  Smith's  Attitude 
Toward  Invaders — The  failure  of  "Popular  Sovereignty "  in 
the  Territories — The  New  Governor  Establishes  Peace  by 
Means  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States— The  Judicial  Contri 
bution  to  Kansas  History. 

THE  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the  pur 
chase  of  nearly  fifty  thousand  square  miles  of  territory 


408  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

from  Mexico  on  the  Southern  boundary  of  New  Mexico, 
and  the  issue  of  a  manifesto  from  Ostend  by  the  Min 
isters  of  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Spain,  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Mason,  and  Soule,  advising 
the  acquisition  of  Cuba  by  the  United  States,  together 
with  the  preparation  of  filibustering  expeditions  in  the 
South  for  the  execution  of  this  and  similar  designs,  all 
coming  within  the  same  year,  1854,  seemed  to  be  suffi 
cient  evidence  of  a  fixed  plan  among  the  slaveholders 
for  the  extension  of  slavery  and  the  increase  of  the  num 
ber  of  slaveholding  Commonwealths  in  the  Union, 
and  roused  the  people  of  the  North  to  an  appreciation 
of  the  impending  danger  and  to  extraordinary  exertions 
for  meeting  the  same  and  warding  it  off. 
%  During  the  debate  upon  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in 
Congress,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  generally  ap- 
Eii  Thayer  predated  that  it  might,  after  all,  turn  out  to 
g^an1?  aTd  ^e  a  Free-soil  measure,  and  that  the  question 
scheme.  whether  it  would  be  such  or  not  in  a  specific 

case  resolved  itself  into  the  problem  of  immigration. 
There  lived,  however,  in  the  town  of  Worcester,  Mass., 
a  shrewd,  far  seeing  business  man,  with  whose  shrewd 
ness,  however,  ideality  and  patriotism  were  mingled  in 
an  uncommon  degree,  who  immediately  comprehended 
the  situation  from  this  point  of  view.  This  man  was  the 
now  well  known  and  universally  honored  Eli  Thayer. 
Before  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  had  become  law,  the 
idea  in  his  mind  had  ripened  into  a  wide-reaching  plan. 
This  plan  was  the  organization  of  an  emigrant  aid  so 
ciety,  with  an  immense  capital,  the  purpose  of  which 
should  be  to  foster  emigration  from  the  Northern  Com 
monwealths  and  the  European  states  into  the  Territories 
and  the  slaveholding  Commonwealths  of  the  Union,  to 
the  end  that  a  Free-soil  population  should  gain  control  of 
them,  and  prohibit  or  abolish  slavery  in  them  by  their 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  409 

own  local  acts.  Mr.  Thayer  reasoned  with  himself  that 
masters  would  be  very  timid  about  immigrating  into  a 
Territory  with  their  slaves  until  the  question  should  be 
determined  whether  slavery  should  have  a  legal  existence 
in  the  Territory,  while  men  without  such  impediments 
would  go  boldly  forward  and  occupy  the  country,  and 
vote  the  free  status  for  the  Territory  ;  and  again,  that 
with  only  about  one-fourth  of  the  white  population  of 
the  slaveholding  Commonwealths  pecuniarily  interested 
in  slavery,  the  immigration  of  a  few  thousand  active 
anti-slavery  men  into  these  would  finally  turn  the  bal 
ance  at  the  polls  against  the  further  existence  of  the  in 
stitution  in  the  slaveholding  Commonwealths  themselves. 
The  plan  was  so  comprehensive  that  most  of  Mr. 
Thayer's  friends  thought  it  visionary,  and  he  modified  it, 
after  having  obtained  his  charter  from  the  legislature  of 
Massachusetts,  limiting  it  to  the  settlement  of  the  Terri 
tories,  and  especially  to  that  of  Kansas  Territory,  by  an 
ti-slavery  men.  The  organization,  as  thus  finally  effected, 
counted  among  its  directors  some  of  the  purest,  most 
patriotic,  and  most  capable  men  of  the  country — Mr.  A. 
A.  Lawrence,  Dr.  Samuel  Cabot,  Mr.  John  Lowell,  Mr. 
Moses  H.  Grinnell,  Rev.  Edward  E.  Hale,  Rev.  Horace 
Bushnell,  Professor  Benjamin  Silliman,  and  others  of 
the  like  fame  and  fortune.  The  way  in  which  they  pro 
posed  to  accomplish  their  purpose  was  by  lessening  the 
hardships  of  the  journey  to  the  distant  country,  and 
the  hardships  of  life  in  the  new  country.  They  pro 
posed  to  organize  the  emigrants  into  companies,  pro 
cure  transportation  for  them  at  the  most  favorable  rates, 
build  hotels,  boarding  -  houses,  mills,  school  -  houses, 
churches — in  a  word  to  send  capital  in  advance  of  popu 
lation,  in  order  to  attract  a  good,  law-abiding  popula 
tion  by  planting  for  them  the  advantages  and  conven 
iences  of  civilization  in  the  new  country.  It  was  a 


410  THE    MIDDLE   PERIOD 

noble  scheme,  and  none  the  less  so  because  of  the  idea 
of  making  it  pay  ultimately  as  a  business  venture. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  a  movement  entirely  new 

in   American   history,    although   this   was   charged   by 

Not  an  en-  manv  °^  the  politicians,  both  of  the  North 

tireiy  new  and  of  the  South.     A  number  of  the  Amer- 

t  n  i  n  g      i  n 

American  his-  ican  colonies  were  originally  planted  under 
the  auspices  of  corporations  in  the  mother 
land,,  and  others  were  formed  by  companies  of  immigrants 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  more  freedom  than  the  Old 
World  afforded.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  objection 
could  have  been  found  to  such  an  association,  animated 
with  such  motives  and  purposes,  and  operating  through 
Denuncia-  such  means,  and  yet  it  was  charged,  even  by 
annodiousfc  in-  Northern  men,  with  the  responsibility  for 
novation.  ^  ^Q  outrages  perpetrated  in  Kansas  dur 
ing  the  stormy  period  of  1855-56.  Even  the  President 
of  the  United  States  denounced  it  with  great  severity. 

The  view  held  by  the  President  and  his  friends,  both 
of  the  North  and  of  the  South,  was  that  no  aid  should 
be  allowed  to  be  given,  and  no  incentive  offered,  by  any 
person  or  organization  to  any  other  person,  to  go  to, 
and  settle  in,  the  common  Territories  of  the  Union,  but 
that  every  emigrant  should  go  entirely  upon  his  own 
impulse,  and  be  sustained  entirely  by  his  own  means. 
This  they  regarded  as  the  only  natural  and  fair  method 
for  carrying  into  effect  the  principle  of  popular  sover 
eignty  in  the  Territories.  Such  a  view  was  a  perfect 
travesty  of  popular  liberty,  and  manifests  the  tyranny 
which  slavery  was  imposing  upon  the  minds  of  freemen. 

Mr.  Thayer's  company  was  never  organized  under  its 
original  charter,  but  under  a  charter  obtained  in  1855. 
During  the  period  when  the  counter  movements,  to  be 
described,  were  set  on  foot  against  it  in  Missouri,  it  had 
no  corporate  existence  at  all,  but  was  a  movement  con- 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  411 

ducted  by  three  private  gentlemen,  Mr.  Thayer,  Mr. 
Lawrence,  and  Mr.  J.  M.  S.  Williams.  Moreover,  the 
establishments  which  they  founded  in  Kansas  The  organi. 
were  open  to  use  by  immigrants  from  any  and  Thayer'sfcom- 
every  part  of  the  Union,  or  of  the  world,  Pany- 
without  distinction.  Such  was  the  organization  which 
was  made  the  justification,  or  better  the  subterfuge,  for 
excesses,  which  had  never  before  been  committed  in  the 
history  of  the  building  of  the  Commonwealths  of  the 
Union. 

During  the  early  summer  of  1854,  exaggerated  and 
false  reports  in  regard  to  the  character,  purposes,  and 
means  of  the  proposed  Emigrant  Aid  Com-  Reports  in 
pany  were  circulated  through  Missouri  and  character0  and 
the  entire  South.  It  was  said  that  an  or-  purposes, 
ganization,  chartered  by  the  legislature  of  Massachu 
setts,  possessing  an  immense  capital,  was  preparing  to 
abolitionize  Kansas  by  means  of  military  colonies,  re 
cruited  from  the  slums  of  the  Eastern  cities,  and  planted 
in  Kansas  with  all  the  munitions  of  war,  to  be  used  not 
only  when  necessary  for  their  own  defence,  but  for  keep 
ing  out  immigrants  from  the  South.  The  notorious 
B.  F.  Stringfellow,  co-editor  with  one  Kelly  of  the 
Squatter  Sovereign,  a  paper  published  at  Atchison, 
which  professed  to  be  the  organ  of  the  Washington 
Government  in  western  Missouri,  rang  the  changes 
upon  these  misrepresentations  in  his  newspaper,  and 
advised  that  the  emigrants  sent  out  by  the  Aid  Society 
be  met  with  the  weapons  of  their  choice,  which  he 
charged  were  those  of  violence. 

The  population  of  western  Missouri  was  then  such  as 
to  receive  ready  impression  from  such  representations, 
and  respond  heartily  to  such  counsel.  This  region  was 
then  the  frontier  between  civilization  and  savagery,  and 
into  it  had  gathered  a  horde  of  desperate  characters, 


412  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

vulgar,  fearless,  brutal,  without  respect  for  civilization 
or  reverence  for  God,  usually  inflamed  with  whiskey  and 

The  Mis-  stained  with  tobacco,  gambling  by  day  and  jay- 
rSif'ian^f  hawking  by  night,  always  ready  for  any  adven 
ture  which  promised  fun,  blood,  or  booty. 
It  is  true  that  they  had  no  special  interest  in  slavery. 
They  were  simply  the  ready  material  out  of  which  the 
slaveholders  of  Missouri  might  recruit  their  mercenaries 
for  any  villainous  work  which  might  be  found  necessary. 
Such  was  the  Missouri  "  border  ruffian  "  of  1854.  It  must 
not  be  understood  that  western  Missouri  contained  no 

Nebraska  other  sort  of  people.  There  were  many  gener- 
a°n dheK?mas  ous-hearted,  fair-minded,  upright  men  there, 
for  the  south.  among  both  the  slaveholders  and  the  non- 
slaveholders,  who  wrould  no  sooner  have  done  wrong  than 
suffered  wrong.  Most  of  them  felt,  however,  that  Kan 
sas  for  the  South  and  slavery,  and  Nebraska  for  the 
North,  was  the  fair  thing,  the  only  fair  thing,  the  thing 
understood  and  intended  in  the  organization  of  the  two 
Territories  by  one  Act,  and  that  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  North  to  make  Kansas  a  non-slaveholding  Terri 
tory  was  a  breach  of  faith,  which  ought  to  be  resisted 
by  the  South,  and  especially  by  Missouri. 

General  D.  E.  Atchison  was  such  a  man,  and  such  was 
his  view  of  the  case.     He  was,  at  the  time,  the  leading 

General  At-  man  of  western  Missouri,  had  represented 
chison.  Missouri  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

and  had  been  president  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate.  His 
opinion  and  his  advice  naturally  determined  the  course 
which  the  people  of  western  Missouri  would  pursue 
toward  Kansas.  In  justice  to  his  memory,  however,  it 
must  be  said  that,  while  he  was  resolved  to  make  Kansas 
a  slaveholding  Territory,  and  then  a  slaveholding  Com 
monwealth,  his  presence  and  counsel  exerted  a  moderat 
ing  influence  upon  his  fierce  and  reckless  followers.  He 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  413 

left  Washington  soon  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act,  and  repaired  to  the  scene  of  the  coming 
conflict,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  and  conducting 
his  forces. 

In  June  of  1854,  Mr.  Thayer,  Mr.  Lawrence,  and  Mr. 
Williams  invited  Dr.  Charles  Robinson,  of  Fitchburg, 
Mass.,  to  meet  them  in  council,  in  regard  to  Dr.  Charles 
the  projects  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company.  R°t>inson. 
Dr.  Robinson  was  a  prominent  "  forty-niner,"  and  the 
leader  of  the  California  squatters  in  the  war  against  the 
Sutter  land  claims.  He  was  shrewd,  calm,  courageous, 
and  full  of  expedients.  These  qualities,  together  with 
his  large  experience  in  organizing  the  forces  of  an  em 
bryonic  Comjnonwealth,  fitted  him  exactly  for  the  work 
which  Mr.  Thayer  and  his  colleagues  were  seeking  to 
accomplish.  Dr.  Robinson  was  not  an  Abolitionist,  and 
neither  was  Thayer,  Lawrence,  nor  Williams.  They  were 
simply  working  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery. 
They  were  all  Whigs  or  Free-soil  Democrats.  They  were 
thus  by  their  moderation  in  principles  and  their  conser 
vatism  in  character  admirably  fitted  to  undertake  the 
great  work  of  making  Kansas  a  free  Commonwealth. 

The  conference  resulted  in  the  sending  of  Dr.  Robin 
son  to  the  front  to  inspect  the  Territory  of  Kansas  and 
make  arrangements  for  settlements.  Accom-  Mr  c>  H 
panied  by  Mr.  C.  II.  Brariscomb,  a  young  law-  Branecoirib- 
yer,  of  Holyoke,  Mass. ,  he  started  for  Kansas  in  the  last 
days  of  June,  1854.  They  went  by  way  of  St.  Louis  and 
Kansas  City.  When  they  arrived  in  Missouri  they  found 
the  excitement  in  reference  to  the  reported  doings  of  the 
Emigrant  Aid  Company  already  at  a  high  pitch.  They 
heard  threats  that  no  anti-slavery  man  would  be  allowed 
to  settle  in  Kansas,  and  they  heard  of  rewards  offered 
for  the  head  of  Eli  Thayer.  They  found  also  that  a 
goodly  number  of  pro-slavery  Missourians  had  already 


414  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

immigrated  into  the  Territory,  had  held  a  popular  con 
vention  or  assembly  at  Salt  Creek  Valley,  at  which  thej 
had  declared  slavery  to  be  an  existing  institution  in  the 
Territory,  and  called  upon  its  friends  to  aid  in  its  firmer 
establishment  and  its  wider  extension. 

From  Kansas  City  Mr.  Branscomb  proceeded  alone 
up  the  Kansas  River  to  Fort  Riley,  while  Dr.  Robinson 

Dr.  Robin-  went  up  the  Missouri  to  Fort  Leaven  worth, 
B°ranifcombMin  ^e  -^oc^or  foun(l  surveyors  laying  off  a  town 
Kansas.  near  Fort  Leavenworth,  despite  the  fact  thai 

the  Government  at  Washington  had  not  yet  opened  the 
country  for  purchase.  He  immediately  returned  to 
Kansas  City,  where  he  received  a  letter  from  Boston 
informing  him  that  the  first  party  of  emigrants  was  on 
the  eve  of  starting  for  Kansas,  and  instructing  him  to 
join  them  at  St.  Louis.  Upon  meeting  them  at  St. 
Louis,  a  letter  was  handed  him  asking  for  his  immediate 
presence  in  Boston.  He  wrote  to  Mr.  Branscomb  to 
join  the  party  at  Kansas  City  and  lead  them  to  a  set 
tlement,  while  he  himself  hurried  to  Boston. 

Mr.  Branscomb  and  a  Colonel  Blood,  of  Wisconsin, 
who  had  also  been  sent  out  by  Mr.  Lawrence,  met  the 
emigrants  at  Kansas  City,  and,  after  a  good 
party  of  emi-  deal  of  deliberation,  led  them  to  the  spot  on 
the  Kansas  River,  above  the  confluence  of  the 
Wakarusa  with  the  Kansas,  on  which  the  town  of  Law 
rence  was  afterward  built. 

A  few  days  before  this  first  party  of  emigrants  had 
arrived  from  the  East,  a  meeting  of  residents  of  Platte 

The   Platte  Countv  in  Missouri  took  place   at  AVeston, 

deTnSve  tf:    aild;  ™lder  the  lead  °f  B*  F'   StringfelloW,  all 

sociation."  organization  was  formed,  which  called  itself 
the  "  Platte  County  Self -defensive  Association,"  with 
the  declared  purpose  of  aiding  in  the  removal  of  all  per 
sons  from  the  soil  of  Kansas  who  might  go  there  through 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  415 

the  aid  or  protection  or  guidance  of  emigrant  aid  socie 
ties  in  the  North.  Other  such  associations  were  formed 
in  other  localities  of  western  Missouri,  and  before  the 
autumn  of  1854  had  hardly  opened,  from  five  to  ten 
thousand  persons,  mostly  desperate  and  reckless  char 
acters,  were  organized  in  the  border  counties  of  western 
Missouri,  and  ready  to  invade  Kansas  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  the  settlers  in  the  Territory  from  Missouri 
and  the  South  generally  in  the  exclusive  possession  of 
the  Territory. 

In  September,  the  little  party  of  about  thirty  men, 
who  had  pitched  their  tents  upon  the  site  of  the  present 

citv  of  Lawrence,  were  "joined  by  Dr.  Robin- 

-  J  J  The  found- 

son  and  S.  C.  Pomeroy,  with  the  second  party  ing  of  Law- 

fromthe  East,  numbering  some  two  hundred 
men.     Upon  the  arrival  of  these  the  work  of  laying  out 
and  building  the  town  was  begun,  and  the  place  was 
named,  in  honor  of  the  strong  financial  supporter  of  the 
Emigrant  Aid  enterprise,  Lawrence. 

When  the  first  party  arrived  at  the  site  they  found 
it  occupied  by  a  single  settler,  named  Stearns.  Mr. 
Branscomb  immediately  purchased  Stearns's  claim  and 
improvements  for  the  company.  The  Missourians  had, 
however,  rushed  into  the  Territory,  at  the  earliest  mo 
ment  after  the  passage  of  the  organic  Act,  and  marked 
all  the  best  lands  as  taken,  leaving  very  little  for  bona 
fide  settlers.  As  the  result  of  this  procedure,  another 
claimant  to  the  site  of  Lawrence  soon  appeared,  one  John 
Baldwin,  and  ordered  the  Yankees  to  decamp.  Robin 
son  proposed  that  each  settler  be  left  in  possession  until 
some  authorized  tribunal  could  pass  upon  Yi^  {^& 
the  claims,  and  declared  that  his  party  would  sion  of  the 

,,,  .  ,.,  Till  Missourians. 

hold  possession  until  removed  by  a  legal  act. 
Baldwin  and  his  party  rejected  the  proposition,  and  sum 
moned  their  Missouri  friends  to  assist  them.    Some  came, 


416  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

but  not  enough  to  overcome  the  Yankees.  The  Yankees 
stood  firm  and  the  Missourians  retired,  declaring  that 
they  would  come  again,  and  breathing  out  threats  of  war 
and  bloodshed  upon  their  return.  This  was  October 
6th,  1854,  and  such  was  the  first  invasion  of  the  Mis 
sourians. 

On  the  next  day,  the  Governor  of  the  Territory,  the 
President's  representative,  the  Hon.  A.  H.  Reeder,  of 
r  Governor  A.  Pennsylvania,  arrived  at  Fort  Leaven  worth, 
H.  Reeder.  an(j  began  hjs  r£gime  in  the  Territory.  From 

this  time  forward  the  history  of  the  Territory  is  the  re 
sultant  of  four  elemental  forces  in  contact  with  each 
other  —  the  general  Government,  the  pro-slavery  in 
habitants,  the  anti-slavery  inhabitants,  and  the  Mis 
sourians. 

Governor  Reeder  was  a  genial,  intelligent,  upright 
man,  a  good  lawyer  and  a  fine  orator.  He  was  a  TJnion- 
loving  Democrat,  and  a  firm  believer  in  the  doctrine 
of  home  rule  in  the  Territories.  He  declared  that  he 
would  maintain  peace  and  order  in  the  Territory,  and 
immediately  set  out  on  a  tour  of  inspection  through  the 
Territory.  After  having  finished  this,  he  caused  the 
Territory  to  be  districted,  and  ordered  the  election  of  a 
delegate  to  Congress. 

There  is  little  question  that  at  the  moment  a  majority 

of  the  bona  fide  settlers  in  the  Territory  were  pro-slavery, 

*      .  and  would  have  elected  the  delegate  to  Con- 

The  second  .  & 

in  v  a  si  on  of  oress  without  anv  outside  aid,  but  the  pro- 

the   Missouri-    fe,  .       "Lr 

ans  and  the   slaverv  men  in   Kansas  and   Missouri    had 

election  of  the    ,  . .     -.    -,         ,  -,  „    .  n 

delegate  to  become  excited  by  the  rumors  01  the  vast 
schemes  in  the  East  for  planting  anti-slavery 
military  colonies  in  the  Territories,  and  also  in  the  slave- 
holding  Commonwealths,  and  were  in  no  state  of  mind 
to  think  quietly  and  act  calmly.  They  felt  that  they 
must  make  sure  of  all  of  the  elements  of  government  in 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOE   KANSAS  417 

Kansas  at  the  outset.  The  Missourians  consequently 
committed  the  fatal  and  unnecessary  blunder  of  going 
over  into  Kansas,  to  the  number  of  some  seventeen  hun 
dred  or  more,  and  voting  for  the  pro-slavery  candidate 
for  Congress,  J.  W.  Whitfield,  who  was  thus  elected  by 
a  large  majority.  Without  the  vote  of  the  Missourians, 
Whitfield  had  still  a  substantial  majority,  but  this  trav 
esty  of  the  principle  of  home  rule  in  the  Territories, 
this  pollution  of  republican  principles  at  the  very  foun 
tain-head,  roused  the  North  to  the  highest  pitch  of  in 
dignation. 

This  election  took  place  on  November  29th,  1854. 
Had  it  occurred  before  the  Congressional  elections  of  that 
year,  it  would  most  probably  have  caused  a 
much  more  rapid  development  of  the  Repub-  nation  of  the 
lican  party  than  happened,  and  the  election 
of  the  Republican  candidate  for  the  presidency  two  years 
later.  As  it  was,  the  struggle  over  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  and  its  final  passage,  had  started  the  amalgamation 
of  the  Northern  Whigs,  the  Free-soilers,  and  the  North 
ern  Democrats  who  opposed  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  into  the  Republican  party,  and  had,  in  the 
Congressional  elections  of  1854,  been  the  chief  cause  in 
changing  a  Democratic  majority  of  more  than  eighty  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  into  a  minority  by  more 
than  seventy. 

Of  course  the  disintegration  of  the  two  old  parties 
would,  under  ordinary  conditions,  proceed  slowly.  The 
members  of  neither  were  willing  to  enter  the  The  Bepllb. 
organization,  or  bear  the  name,  of  the  other.  Ucan  wft- 
As  the  Northern  Whigs  had  unanimously  opposed  the  re 
peal  of  the  restriction  of  1820  upon  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories,  it  was  not  unnatural  that  they  should  at  first  feel 
that  they  were  already  the  anti-slavery-extension  party, 
and  that  all  persons  holding  to  that  principle  should  be 
27 


418  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

willing  to  march  under  their  banner.  Some  of  the  more 
liberal  minds  among  them  in  the  Northwest,  especially 
in  Wisconsin  and  Michigan,  had,  already  in  the  summer 
of  1854,  joined  with  the  Free-soilers,  and  the  Democrats 
who  opposed  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  to 
form  a  new  party,  under  a  new  name,  the  Kepublican 
party,  which,  indeed,  had  no  other  principle  than  that 
already  represented  by  the  Northern  Whigs,  but  which 
did  not  repel  the  Democrats  by  requiring  them  to  desert 
to  their  old  enemy.  The  great  majority  of  both  Whigs 
and  Democrats  were,  however,  rather  waiting  to  see 
how  home  rule  in  the  Territories  would  work,  and  were 
in  the  meantime  busying  themselves,  in  large  degree, 
with  other  questions,  chief  among  which  was  the  ques 
tion  whether  the  country  ought  not  to  be  preserved 
against  foreign  Eoman  Catholic  immigration,  the  ques 
tion  which  gave  rise  to  the  short-lived  Know-nothing 
party,  with  its  principle  of  America  for  Americans,  the 
only  real  service  of  which  movement  was  the  aid  which 
it  lent  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Whig  party,  and  to 
the  preparation  of  the  way  for  the  union  of  the  North 
ern  Whigs  with  the  anti-slavery-extension  elements  of 
the  other  parties  into  the  Republican  party. 

The  interference  of  the  Missourians  in  the  first  elec 
tion  in  Kansas,  demonstrating  the  impracticability  of 
"  popular  sovereignty  "  in  the  Territories,  was  the  very 
thing  necessary  to  hasten  the  development  of  the  Re 
publican  party,  but  it  came  too  late  to  influence  the  elec 
tions  of  1854,  and  the  shock  which  it  caused  lost  some 
of  the  sharpness  of  its  effect  before  the  autumn  of  1856. 

The  Congress  to  which  Whitfield  presented  his  cre 
dentials  was  the  one  whose  House  of  Representatives  had 
been  chosen  in  1852.  His  claim  to  his  seat  was  at  first  not 
resisted,  and  the  first  step  in  the  programme  for  making 
Kansas  a  slaveholding  Territory  was  thus  successful. 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  419 

Of  far  more  importance,  however,  than  the  election  of 
the  delegate  to  Congress  was  the  election  of  the  mem 
bers  of  the  first  Territorial  legislature,  since,  The  Terri- 
according  to  the  principle  of  "  popular  sov-  fcwfei  legisia- 
ereignty"  in  the  Territories,  it  would  have 
the  power  probably  of  determining  primarily  the  legality 
or  illegality  of  slavery  in  Kansas. 

In  February  of  1855,  the  Territorial  authorities  took 
a  census  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territory,  and  it  was 
estimated  that  there  were  between  eight  and  nine  thou 
sand  bona  fide  settlers  in  the  Territory,  about  three 
thousand  of  whom  were  voters.  It  was  also  found  that 
about  four- sevenths  of  the  legal  voters  had  emigrated 
from  the  South.  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that  all 
of  these  were  pro-slavery  men. 

March  13th  following  was  the  day  appointed  for 
the  election.  All  through  the  month  the  Missourians 
of  the  border  counties  were  assembling  in  The  third 
their  "  Blue  Lodges,"  arming,  organizing 
and  drilling.  On  the  day  of  the  election  ans. 
some  four  or  five  thousand  of  them  marched,  fully 
armed,  to  the  voting  places  in  the  more  eastern  dis 
tricts  of  the  Territory,  and  compelled  the  acceptance 
of  their  ballots  by  the  regular  judges  of  the  elections,  or 
by  judges  appointed  by  themselves.  About  six  thousand 
three  hundred  votes  were  cast  at  this  election,  and  it  was 
estimated  that  three-fourths  of  them  were  cast  by  the 
Missouri  invaders.  Some  of  them  pretended  to  be  resi 
dents  of  the  Territory,  but  most  of  those  who  thought 
it  necessary  to  justify  the  procedure  at  all  claimed  that 
the  Emigrant  Aid  Company  had  sent  out  men  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  voting,  and  that  their  own  action  was 
retaliatory.  The  invasion  was  a  notoriously  public 
deed.  The  Missourians  came  in  companies,  with  music 
and  banners,  and  made  no  attempt  at  concealment.  The 


420  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Governor  of  the  Territory  resided,  at  the  time,  near  the 
Missouri  border,  and  probably  had  ocular  proof  of  the 
outrage.  The  anti-slavery  men  thought  that  he  would 
set  the  entire  election  aside.  He  did  call  for  protests, 
and  appointed  April  5th  as  the  time  for  hearing  the 
same  and  canvassing  the  returns. 

When  the  day  arrived  protests  had  been  received  from 
only  six  or  seven  of  the  eighteen  election  districts,  and 
affected  the  elections  of  not  more  than  three  of  the  thir 
teen  persons  returned  as  elected  to  the  upper  house, 
and  of  not  more  than  nine  of  the  twenty-six  persons  re 
turned  as  elected  to  the  lower  house,  of  the  Territorial 
legislature. 

Dr.    Eobinson   and   the   anti-slavery   men   who    had 

gathered  about  the  Governor  as  a  sort  of  body-guard 

Governor  wanted  the  Governor  to  declare  the  entire 

^Territorial  election  nu^  and  voicl>  but  tne  Governor  was  a 
elections.  good  lawyer,  and  he  quickly  determined  that 
he  could  not  pronounce  an  election  null  and  void  in  a 
district  from  whicli  no  charges  of  fraud  were  presented, 
011  account  of  fraud  charged  in  some  other  district,  and 
that  he  could  not  refuse  his  certificate  to  any  one  elected 
on  the  face  of  the  returns,  if  nobody  disputed  the  regu 
larity  of  his  election.  Upon  examining  the  disputed 
cases  he  decided  to  refuse  his  certificate  to  eight  of  the 
twelve  persons  chosen  on  the  face  of  the  disputed  re 
turns.  Thirty-one  members  were  thus  duly  qualified  to 
take  their  seats,  and  new  elections  for  eight  seats  were 
ordered.  Of  these  thirty-one,  twenty-eight  were  counted 
as  pro-slavery  men,  a  large  majority  in  both  houses. 

Dr.  Robinson  and  the  anti-slavery  men  found  great 
fault  with  the  Governor,  and  charged  him  with  being 
frightened  out  of  his  original  purpose  to  set  the  entire 
election  aside,  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  have 
done  this  without  protests  against  the  return  of  each 


seaf  s 


THE   STRUGGLE  FOR   KANSAS  421 

and  every  person.  It  would  certainly  have  been  an  arbi 
trary  procedure  to  have  done  so.  If  the  anti-slavery 
men  were  not  brave  enough  to  protest,  it  certainly  did 
not  become  them  to  taunt  the  Governor  with  backing 
down,  when  they  gave  him  nothing  upon  which  to  base 
the  refusal  to  issue  his  certificates. 

The  22nd  day  of  the  following  month  (May)  was  ap 
pointed  for  holding  the  elections  for  the  seats  declared 
unfilled  by  the  Governor.  The  anti-slavery  The  new 
candidates  were  elected  to  all  of  them.  The 
pro-slavery  men  ignored  the  election.  This  finfd 
meant  that  those  holding  the  Governor's  cer-  first  elections. 
tificate  by  virtue  of  this  election  would  be  rejected  by 
the  legislature  itself,  and  those  returned  as  elected  at 
the  first  election  would  be  seated,  under  the  power  of 
the  legislature  to  determine  finally  upon  the  legitimacy 
of  its  members.  This  happened  as  soon  as  the  legislat 
ure  assembled  and  organized  itself  in  the  first  days  of 
July. 

The  legislature  as  thus  organized  contained  only  a 
single  anti-slavery  man,  a  Mr.  Houston,  and  he  volun 
tarily  vacated  his  seat  a  few  weeks  later  in  The  or  ani. 

•eat  disgust.      From  a  technical  point  of  zation  of  the 

&  first   legislat- 

view  this  legislature  was  a  legitimate  body,   ure  of  Kansas 

Territory 

but  from  a  moral  and  a  political  point  of  view 
it  did  not  represent  the  people  of  the  Territory.     It  rep 
resented  simply  the  pro-slavery  party,  and  used  its  powers 
in  utter  disregard  of  justice  and  right  reason. 

The  great  problem  for  the  anti-slavery  men  now  was 
to  repudiate  the  jurisdiction  of  this  legislat-  The  rob 
ure  without  rebelling  against  the  general  lem.  for  the 

&       °  anti-slavery 

Government  and  its  agent  in  the  Territory,   men.  Dr.  Rob- 
the  Governor.    Dr.  Robinson  had  had  the  ex 
perience  in  California  of  aiding  to  make  a  Commonwealth 
in  the  Union,  without  the  transitional  period  of  Territor- 


422  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

ial  organization.  He  now  applied  this  experience  to  the 
solution  of  the  Kansas  question. 

The  idea  of  Dr.  Kobinson  and  his  colleagues  was,  to 
hold  a  convention  of  the  people  of  the  Territory  for  the 
purpose  of  framing  an  organic  statute  for  Commonwealth 
government,  which,  after  adoption  by  the  people,  should 
be  sent  to  Congress,  with  a  petition  for  the  admission  of 
Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  Commonwealth.  They  pro 
posed  in  the  meantime  to  get  on  without  any  Territorial 
government  as  best  they  could. 

Their  idea  was,  in  the  second  place,  to  ignore  the  Terri 
torial  government  altogether  as  bogus,  but  to  yield  obe 
dience  to  the  officials  of  the  general  Government  in  the 
Territory.  This  distinction  might  be  made,  so  far  as  the 
Territorial  legislature  was  concerned,  upon  the  "popular 
sovereignty  "  principle.  The  difficulty  was  in  applying 
it  to  the  Governor  and  the  Territorial  judges  appointed 
by  the  President.  To  distinguish  between  their  func 
tions  in  such  a  way  as  to  deny  their  authority  when 
administering  the  acts  of  the  Territorial  legislature,  and 
yield  to  it  when  administering  the  acts  of  Congress  in 
the  Territory,  was  certainly  a  very  delicate  procedure, 
if  possible  at  all.  Such  distinctions  would  have  to  be 
very  clearly  understood,  and  very  correctly  applied  in 
each  case,  in  order  to  avoid  the  charge  of  rebellion  and 
treason. 

Had  the  Governor  remained  true  to  the  legislature 
it  is  possible  that  this  plan  of  rebellion  against  the  Ter- 

conflict  be  ritorial  government  might  have  been  sup- 
tweentheGov-  pressed  at  the  outset,  but  such  was  not  to  be 
Territorial  leg-  the  course  of  history.  He  called  the  legislat 
ure  to  assemble  at  Pawnee  on  July  2nd.  It 
remained  in  session  there  only  four  days.  It  did  little 
more  than  unseat  the  persons  holding  the  Governor's 
certificate  by  virtue  of  the  second  election,  and  seat 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  423 

those  to  whom  he  had  denied  his  certificate  on  account 
of  fraud  at  the  first  election.  It  then  adjourned  itself 
to  Shawnee  Mission,  a  place  nearer  the  Missouri  border. 
The  Governor  denied  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  do 
this,  since  by  the  Act  organizing  the  Territory,  the  legis 
lature  must  first  meet  at  the  time  and  place  appointed 
by  the  Governor,  and  was  vested  by  the  Act  with  power, 
thereafter,  only  over  the  time  of  commencing  its  regular 
sessions.  The  Governor  vetoed  the  proposition  of  the 
legislature  to  change  its  place  of  meeting.  The  legislat 
ure  passed  the  project  over  his  veto,  and  removed  to 
Shawnee  Mission ;  after  which  the  Governor  broke  oft 
all  official  connection  with  it.  There  is  little  doubt 
that  the  pro-slavery  legislature  wanted  to  be  where  it 
could  be  easily  supported  by  the  Missourians,  and  that 
the  Governor  considered  this  a  menace  to  his  own  inde 
pendence,  and  an  outrage  upon  the  people  of  Kansas, 
and  upon  the  principle  of  "popular  sovereignty"  in  the 
Territories. 

The  attitude  now  assumed  by  the  Governor  toward 
the  legislature  at  Shawnee  Mission  was  a  great  encour 
agement  to  the  anti-slavery  men.  Dr.  Rob-  sharpe's  ri- 
inson  had  already  sent  to  Mr.  Thayer  for  fles- 
Sharpe's  rifles,  and,  at  the  time  of  the  Governor's  quarrel 
with  the  legislature,  a  sufficient  number  of  these  had 
arrived  to  furnish  almost  every  anti-slavery  man  with  a 
good  outfit. 

Dr.  Robinson  had,  at  the  same  time,  overcome  the  at 
tempts  of  James  S.  Lane  to  separate  the  anti-slavery 
men  into  parties,  by  the  organization  of  a  Facti0nai 
Democratic  party  in  Kansas.  In  a  powerful  movements 

x         J  A  among  the  an- 

speech  at  Lawrence,  on  July  4th,  1855,  the  ti-siavery  men 
Doctor  convinced  his  hearers  of  the  necessity 
for  all  anti-slavery  men  standing  together  until  Kansas 
should  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  non-slavehold- 


424  THE   MIDDLE    PERIOD 

ing  Commonwealth.  It  was  in  this  address  that  the 
Doctor  repudiated  the  existing  legislature  as  a  Missouri 
institution,  advising  resistance  to  the  execution  of  its 
acts,  and  made  his  noted  declaration,  that,  if  slavery  in 
Missouri  was  impossible  with  freedom  in  Kansas,  then 
slavery  in  Missouri  must  die  in  order  that  freedom  in 
Kansas  might  live. 

These  bold  utterances  startled  the  North  and  the 
South,  the  people  of  Kansas  and,  especially,  the  people 

Excitement  °^  ^issour]-  This  speech,  together  with  the 
in  Missouri  letter  of  M.  F.  Conway  to  Governor  Reeder, 

and  through-  .  ,       ,       . 

out  the  COUE-  resioTLino;  ins  seat  in  the  legislature  and  re 
try  over  the  -,*,-,-,  ,  -,  e<  f 

••Free-state"  pudiatmg  that  body  "as  derogatory  to  the 
respectability  of  popular  government  and  in 
sulting  to  the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  age/'  set  the 
"  Free-state  "  scheme  in  motion. 

The  enactments  of  the  Territorial  legislature  greatly 
aided  the  movement  by  demonstrating  to  the  people  what 

The  enact-  they  had  to  expect  from  the  dominance  of  that 
Te^riufrVal  body.  They  made  the  decoying,  or  aiding 
legislature.  therein,  of  a  slave  away  from  his  master  in 
the  Territory  grand  larceny,  punishable  by  death.  They 
made  the  decoying  into  Kansas  of  any  slave  away  from 
his  master  in  any  other  place,  for  the  purpose  of  effect 
ing  his  freedom,  grand  larceny,  punishable  by  death. 
And  they  made  the  denial  of  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in 
Kansas,  either  by  word  of  mouth  or  in  writing  or  print 
ing,  a  felony,  punishable  by  imprisonment  at  hard  labor 
for  not  less  than  two  years. 

When   the   knowledge    of   this   infamous   legislation 

The  North  spread  throughout  the  North,  it  roused  that 
fMs^iegisia7-  section  of  the  country  to  new  efforts  for  peo- 
tion-  pling  Kansas  with  anti-slavery  men,  who 

would  rescue  the  Territory  from  the  reign  of  such  laws 
and  such  law-makers.  The  necessary  reinforcements 


.       THE   STRUGGLE   FOK   KANSAS  425 

were  being  assembled  in  the  North  when  the  creation 
of  the  "  Free-state  "  government  was  begun. 

A  series  of  conventions,  beginning  with  the  convention 
at  Lawrence  on  August  14th,  and  culminating  with  that 
assembled  at  Topeka  on  the  23rd  day  of  Oc-  The  Topeka 
tober,  1855,  consolidated  the  anti-slavery  men  cogitation, 
in  the  Territory  into  the  "Free-state"  party,1  con 
structed  a  temporary  election  machinery,  and  produced, 
finally,  a  proposed  Commonwealth  constitution,  which, 
in  addition  to  the  provisions  for  the  structure  of  a  Com 
monwealth  government  for  Kansas,  contained  a  clause 
prohibiting  slavery  in  Kansas  after  July  4th,  1857,  and  ex 
cluding  negroes  from  residence  in  Kansas  after  that  date. 

In  the  meantime  Governor  Reeder  had  been  removed 
by  the  President  from  the  governorship  of  the  Territory, 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Territory,  one  Dan-  The  removal 
iel  Woodson,  a  pro-slavery  man,  had  become 
acting  Governor  for  the  time  being.  Ex- 
Governor  Reeder  now  went  over  to  the  anti-  delegate, 
slavery  men,  and  was  chosen  by  them  on  October  9th, 
at  the  same  election  at  which  the  delegates  to  the  To 
peka  convention  were  chosen,  as  delegate  to  Congress. 
Over  twenty-seven  hundred  votes  were  cast  at  this 
election. 

On  December  loth,  the  Topeka  constitution  was  sub 
mitted  to  the  suffrages  of  the  people.  Seventeen  hundred 
and  thirty-one  votes  were  cast  in  favor  of  its 
adoption,  and  forty-six  votes  against  it.  The  tionhe3tlfithe 
pro-slavery  men  took  no  part  in  the  voting, 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  a  majority  of 
the  legal  voters  in  Kansas  ratified  this  con- 
stitution.  On  January  5th,  1856,  the  elec 
tions  for  the  legislative  members  and  officials  of  the 
government  provided  by  this  constitution  were  held,  and 
Dr.  Robinson  was  chosen  Governor. 


426  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

It  was  at  tliis  election  that  the  conflict  of  arms  between 
the  ' '  Free-state  "  government  and  the  Territorial  gov- 
The  first  ernment  began.  A  Territorial  military  com 
pany,  called  the  Kickapoo  Rangers,  threat 
ened  to  interfere  with  the  elections  at  the  town  of 
Easton.  A  captain,  R.  P.  Brown,  organized  a  company 
of  "Free-state"  men  at  Leaven  worth,  and  went  to 
Easton  to  protect  the  ballot  box.  As  the  evening  drew 
on  a  fight  ensued,  in  which  a  Territorial  man  was  killed. 
The  next  day  the  Leavenworth  company  was  attacked, 
on  their  return,  by  the  Kickapoo  company,  and  Captain 
Brown  was  taken  prisoner.  Some  movements  were  in  prog 
ress  for  trying  him,  when  one  of  the  ruffians  put  an  end 
to  the  matter  by  striking  him  on  the  head  with  a  hatchet. 

Two  local  governments  of  Kansas  were  now  in  exist 
ence.  One,  the  Territorial,  had  been  recognized  as 
legitimate  by  the  Washington  Government, 
state"  gov-  What,  then,  was  the  other  ?  Was  it  a  body 
the  Adminis-  of  insurrectionists  ?  If  so,  must  the  general 
Government  suppress  it  ?  And,  if  the  gen 
eral  Government  must  suppress  it,  must  it  do  so  at  once, 
or  should  it  wait  until  the  insurrectionists  should  under 
take  to  exercise  some  governmental  power  ?  These 
were  knotty  problems  for  the  Administration  at  Wash 
ington,  but  they  were  problems  which  had  to  be  solved. 
From  the  inaction  of  the  Washington  authorities  we 
must  conclude  that  the  prevailing  view  with  them  was 
that  the  new  government  in  Kansas  must  do  something 
before  it  could  be  dealt  with. 

The  "Free-state"  legislature  met  March  4th,  1856. 
The  acts  of  It  prepared  a  memorial  to  Congress,  praying 
state » F]egis-  ^or  the  entrance  of  Kansas  as  a  Common- 
lature.  wealth  into  the  Union,  under  the  Topeka 

constitution.  It  elected  Reeder  and  Lane  United  States 
Senators.  It  appointed  a  committee  to  put  the  legisla- 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  427 

tive  business  into  shape  for  the  next  session.  And  it 
passed  a  few  laws. 

None  of  these  acts  were  treasonable.  Treason,  by  the 
Constitution,  is  levying  war  against  the  United  States  or 
any  of  the  "  States/'  or  adhering  to  those  who  are  doing 
so,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort ;  and  levying  war  has 
been  defined  by  the  Supreme  Court  to  be  the  actual 
assembly  of  armed  men  for  the  treasonable  purpose.  Not 
even  the  voluntary  submission  to  the  laws  passed  by  the 
"  Free-state  "  legislature  was  treason  or  rebellion.  The 
danger  point  would  be  reached  when  the  "  Free-state  " 
government  should  undertake  to  enforce  its  laws,  or 
should  interpose  armed  resistance  to  the  enforcement  of 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  acts  of  the  Ter 
ritorial  government,  which  government  had  been  recog 
nized  as  legitimate  by  the  general  Government,  which  was, 
in  fact,  but  the  local  agent  of  the  general  Government. 

Governor  Robinson  understood  the  situation.  In  his 
message  to  the  legislature  he  recommended 

,        ,    T  ...  ,,  Governor 

"no  course  to  be  taken  in  opposition  to  the  Robinson's 
general  Government,   or   to  the  Territorial 
government,  while  it  shall  remain  with  the  sanction  of 
Congress." 

In  the  midst  of  these  movements  by  the  "  Free-state" 
men,  the  pro-slavery  men  organized  themselves  more 
closely  for  aggressive  action.     The  new  Gov 
ernor   appointed  by   the   President,    Wilson  Governor, 

~,,  ~  p     ~,  .  f    Shannon,  and 

Shannon,  ex-Governor  ot  Ohio,  a  man  01  the  "law  and 
intelligence  and  high  character,  arrived  at 
Shawnee  Mission  on  September  3rd,  1855.  The  pro- 
slavery  men  did  not  like  his  appointment.  They  wanted 
the  acting  Governor,  Woodson,  to  be  made  Governor. 
However,  they  received  the  new  Governor  with  much 
pomp  and  ceremony,  and  succeeded  in  imposing  upon 
him,  at  the  outset,  their  view  of  the  situation.  On 


428  THE   MIDDLE   PEEIOD 

November  ]4th,  they  held  a  pro-slavery  convention  at 
Leavenworth.  They  called  it  an  assembly  of  "the 
lovers  of  law  and  order."  The  Governor  presided  over 
it,  and  made  a  rather  violent  speech,  in  which  he  de 
clared  that  the  Territorial  government  had  the  support 
of  the  Administration  at  Washington.  The  practical 
work  of  this  convention  was  the  organization  of  the 
"  law  and  order  "  party  ;  that  is,  the  party  for  enforcing 
the  acts  and  authority  of  the  Territorial  government. 

Naturally  a  dispute  about  a  land  claim  furnished  the 
occasion  for  trying  the  powers  of  the  Territorial  govern- 
The  attempt  ment.  In  the  course  of  this  quarrel,  which 
T0eernrHCoer i a!  t(>°k  place  in  the  latter  part  of  November, 
^FrVe^sLte1-  1855>  a  pro-slavery  man,  named  Coleman, 
men-  killed  a  "Free-state"  man,  named  Dow. 

The  friends  of  Dow  gathered  about  the  spot  where  his 
dead  body  was  found,  and  indulged  in  threats  of  ven 
geance.  Among  them  was  one  Jacob  Branson,  who  ut 
tered  threats  against  one  Buckley,  as  the  instigator  of 
the  murder  of  his  friend.  Buckley  secured  a  peace  war 
rant  against  Branson,  and  put  it  in  the  hands  of  one 
S.  J.  Jones,  the  sheriff,  under  the  Territorial  govern 
ment,  of  Douglas  County.  The  arrest  of  Branson  un 
der  this  warrant  inaugurated  the  contest  for  imposing 
the  authority  of  the  Territorial  government  upon  the 
"Free-state"  men. 

Sheriff  Jones  arrested  Branson,  and  started  for  Le- 
compton  with  him,  by  way  of  Lawrence.  His  purpose 
The  Bran-  ^n  g°ing  through  the  head-quarters  of  the 
son  rescue.  «  Free-state  "  men  was  undoubtedly  to  tempt 
them  to  the  rescue  of  Branson.  But  Branson  was  res 
cued  several  miles  away  from  Lawrence  by  a  company 
of  "Free-state"  men,  under  the  lead  of  a  Captain  Ab 
bott.  This  party,  however,  immediately  repaired  to 
Lawrence,  while  the  sheriff  went  to  Franklin,  and  from 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  429 

this  place  summoned  his  Missouri  friends  to  his  aid,  and 
then  reported  his  trouble  to  the  Governor,  and  asked 
for  his  support. 

The  Governor  immediately  ordered  the  officers  of  the 
Territorial  militia  to  collect  the  forces,  and  march  to 
Lawrence.  Although  the  sheriff  asked  for  The  advance 
three  thousand  men,  not  one  hundred  resi-  SSf^SSS- 
dents  of  the  Territory  answered  the  call  of  reilce- 
the  militia  officers  ;  but  a  great  horde  came  from  Mis 
souri.  By  December  5th,  1855,  more  than  a  thousand 
Missourians  had  arrived,  and  had  encamped  upon  the 
Wakarusa,  a  few  miles  to  the  east  of  Lawrence.  General 
Atchison  was  with  them. 

Naturally  the  people  of  Lawrence  were  much  excited, 
and  set  about  preparing  for  defence.  They  constructed 
several  small  forts,  and  organized  a  military  force  of 
some  six  or  seven  hundred  men,  pretty  well  armed  and 
equipped.  They  stood  a  very  good  chance  to  win  in  the 
trial  of  battle,  but  they  resolved,  most  wisely,  to  rely 
upon  the  justice  of  their  cause  more  than  upon  the 
power  of  their  arms. 

The  committee  of  safety,  which  was  directing  matters 
in  Lawrence,  sent  commissioners  to  Governor  Shannon 
to  enlighten  him,  from  the  point  of  view  of  Lawrence'8 
the  " Free-state"  men,  in  regard  to  the  situa-  demand  of 

protection 

tion.      They   made   their   way   to   Shawnee  from  Gover- 

,,.     .  ,  TT-,  -11        nor  Shannon. 

Mission,  where  they  were  coldly  received,  by 
the  Governor,  who  charged  the  "Free-state"  men  with 
rebellion  against  his  government.  The  commissioners 
disputed  his  charge,  told  him  that  nobody  in  Lawrence 
had  had  anything  to  do  with  the  rescue  of  Branson,  that 
his  rescuers  had  been  warned  out  of  the  town  as  soon  as 
they  came  into  it,  and  had  obeyed  the  warning,  and 
gave  him  the  committee's  message  demanding  his  pro 
tection  against  the  invaders. 


430  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  Governor  was  somewhat  staggered  by  these  state 
ments,  and  decided  to  go  to  Lawrence  himself,  and  exam- 
shannon  at  ine  affairs  on  the  spot.  This  was  just  what 
h£wa|?eeemea?  the  "  Free-state  "  men  wanted.  He  arrived 
^Free- state"  ^n  Lawrence  on  December  7th.  Dr.  Robin- 
men-  son  and  Colonel  Lane  immediately  stated  the 

situation  and  the  views  of  the  "  Free-state "  men  to 
him.  The  Governor  saw,  at  once,  that  they  were  in 
the  right,  and  could  not  be  attacked.  He  recognized, 
at  once,  that  his  task  was  to  send  the  Missourians  out 
of  the  Territory.  He  entered  into  a  sort  of  written 
agreement  with  the  citizens  of  Lawrence,  in  which 
the  people  of  Lawrence  pledged  themselves  not  to  re 
sist  the  legal  service  of  any  criminal  process,  but  to 
aid  in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  when  called  on  by 
proper  authority,  and  the  Governor  declared  that  he  had 
no  authority  to  call  upon  non-residents  of  Kansas  to  aid 
him  in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  had  not  done  so,  and 
would  not  do  so.  The  last  clause  provided  that  nothing 
in  the  agreement  should  be  taken  as  a  recognition  of  the 
validity  of  the  acts  of  the  Territorial  legislature  by  the 
"  Free-state  "  men. 

The  Governor  felt  that  he  would  have  difficulty  in 
reconciling  the  Missourians  to  his  agreement,  and  in 
sisted  that  Dr.  Robinson  and  Colonel  Lane  should  ac 
company  him  to  Franklin,  and  aid  him  in  his  task.  The 
calm  statements  of  the  Governor  and  of  Dr.  Robinson 
prevailed,  and  the  Missourians  saw  the  error  into  which 
they  had  been  betrayed  by  the  inconsiderate  pro-slavery 
zeal  of  Sheriff  Jones.  General  Atchison  told  his  follow 
ers  plainly  that  Dr.  Robinson's  position  was  impregnable, 
and  that  if  they  should  persist  in  an  attack  upon  Law 
rence,  contrary  to  the  Governor's  orders,  they  were  only 
a  mob.  He  added,  that  such  a  movement  was  not  only 
without  show  of  legality,  but  would  ruin  the  Democratic 


THE  STRUGGLE   FOR  KANSAS  431 

party,  and  cause  the  election  of  an  Abolitionist  Presi 
dent  the  next  year.  By  these  efforts  and  The  retreat 
representations  on  the  part  of  the  Governor,  oftheMissou- 
Dr.  Robinson,  and  General  Atchison,  the  Mis- 
sourians  were  induced  to  break  camp  and  turn  their 
faces  homeward. 

At  the  moment  of  this  victory  of  the  "  Free-state" 
men,  won  by  moral  forces  and  diplomatic  address,  ap^ 
peared  the  Loki  of  Kansas  "Free-state" 

,     _       ,          .      John  Brown. 

history,  John  Brown.  He  mounted  a  box  in 
one  of  the  streets  of  Lawrence,  railed  and  ranted  against 
the  settlement  which  had  been  reached,  and  breathed 
out  words  of  slaughter  and  pillage,  until  some  man  of 
common  sense  pulled  him  down,  and  stopped  his  mur 
derous  canting  babble. 

The  Governor  reported  the  affair  to  the  President,  ex 
pressed  to  him  his  forebodings  as  to  the  future,  and  sug 
gested  that  he  be  allowed  to  call  upon  the  Shannon>8 
United  States  troops  stationed  at  Fort  Leav-  report  to  the 

.  .  -no  President. 

enworth  at  his  discretion,  as  a  call  for  the 
militia  would  only  end  in  a  party  struggle.     This  com 
munication  seems  to  have  opened  the  eyes  of  the  Presi 
dent,  for  the  first  time,  to  the  true  situation. 

The  "Free-state"  men  now  addressed  the  President 
and  demanded  his  protection  against  another  invasion 
from  Missouri,  which  they  claimed  was  in  The 
preparation.  On  January  23rd,  1856,  the  %£$ 
leaders  at  Lawrence  telegraphed  the  Presi-  the  Presideilt- 
dent  that  the  outrage  was  on  the  point  of  consummation, 
and  besought  the  President  to  issue  his  proclamation,  at 
once,  forbidding  the  invasion.  At  the  same  time,  they 
informed  certain  members  of  Congress  and  the  Govern 
ors  of  certain  Northern  Commonwealths  of  the  im 
pending  danger  ;  and  they  sent  commissioners  into  the 
Northern  Commonwealths  to  inform  the  people  of  the 


432  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

North  in  regard  to  the  situation  in  Kansas,  and  to  ap 
peal  to  them  to  emigrate  thither  in  sufficient  numbers 
to  save  the  Territory  against  the  pro-slavery  movement. 
The  agitation  became  now  so  general  throughout  the 
country,  that  the  President  felt  constrained  to  interfere. 
.  On  February  llth,  he  issued  his  proclama- 
dentfs  procia-  tion,  in  which  he  warned  all  persons  con 
cerned  that  "  an  attempted  insurrection  "  in 
the  Territory  of  Kansas  or  "  an  aggressive  intrusion  into 
the  same  "  would  be  resisted  by  the  employment  of  the 
United  States  troops  in  Kansas,  as  well  as  the  local 
militia  ;  and  called  upon  all  good  citizens  outside  of 
Kansas  to  abstain  from  intermeddling  with  the  local 
affairs  of  the  Territory,  and  upon  all  good  citizens  in 
Kansas  to  render  obedience  to  the  laws. 

The  e<  Free-state"  men  did  not  regard  the  proclama 
tion  as  particularly  friendly  to  them.     While  it  forbade 
The  situa-  invasion,  it  commanded  obedience  to  the  ex- 
more  eJnbar6-  isting  Territorial  government  within.     They 

-TrSstaVe3-    Were    afraid  that   they  W0uld   not    be   allowed 

men-  to  organize  their  "  Free-state  "  government, 

created  by  the  Topeka  constitution.  But,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  day  came  and  went  for  this,  without  any  inter 
ference  on  the  part  of  the  President  or  the  Governor 
against  the  movement,  although  the  President  had  au 
thorized  the  Governor  to  call  upon  the  United  States 
troops  at  Fort  Leavenworth  at  his  discretion.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  was  certainly  the  part  of  wisdom 
for  the  "Free-state"  men  to  do  nothing  superfluous  or 
sensational  in  the  organization  of  the  new  government, 
and  to  delay  operations  under  it  for  the  time  being. 
The  question  of  the  recognition  of  the  "  Free-state  " 
movement  was  before  Congress,  under  the  issue  of  the 
contest  between  Whitfield  and  Reeder  for  the  seat  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  The  policy,  therefore, 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR  KANSAS  433 

of  representing  the  organization  of  the  new  government 
as  tentative,  and  as  conditioned  upon  the  presumption 
of  Congressional  recognition,  and  as  holding  its  powers 
in  abeyance  until  that  recognition  should  be  secured, 
was  wise  and  necessary. 

The  discussion  of  Kansas  affairs  in  the  House  of  Bep- 
resentatives  revolved  about  the  question  of  the  admission 
of  Whitfield  or  Reeder  from  the  middle  of  The  Con- 
February  to  March  19th,  1856,  when  it  was  Kmdito^ti 
voted  to  send  a  special  committee  of  investi-  the  Territory- 
gation  to  the  Territory.  The  gentlemen  selected  were 
Mr.  Howard,  of  Michigan,  Mr.  Sherman,  of  Ohio,  and  Mr. 
Oliver,  of  Missouri.  They  proceeded  to  the  Territory  and 
opened  their  investigations  about  the  middle  of  April. 

A  week  before  this,  the  memorial  from  the  "  Free- 
state  "  legislature  praying  for  the  admission  of  Kansas, 
as  a  Commonwealth,  under  the  Topeka  con-  Application 
stitution,  was  presented  in  both  Houses  of  for  admission. 
Congress,  and  placed  upon  the  calendar  in  each.  The 
slavery  question  was  herewith  again  before  Congress  in 
both  principle  and  detail.  The  measure  which  was  in 
tended  to  put  its  discussion  out  of  the  halls  of  Congress 
had  thus,  in  less  than  two  years,  proved  itself  an  utter 
fiasco. 

In  the  Territory  the  pro-slavery  men  pursued  their 
policy  of  bringing  the  "  Free-state  "  men  into  conflict 
with  the  general  Government.  The  "Free-  sheriff  Jones 
state"  men  sought  just  as  diligently  to  avoid  ?fn<S;at  and 
it.  Both  sides  recognized  this  as  the  crucial  ^assassinate 
test.  By  the  middle  of  April,  some  of  the  him- 
men  who  participated  in  the  rescue  of  Branson  had  made 
their  way  back  to  Lawrence,  and  Sheriff  Jones  laid  his 
plans  for  arresting  them.  On  April  19th,  he  rode  into 
Lawrence  and  served  a  writ  upon  S.  N.  "Wood,  but  the 
crowd  jostled  them  apart,  and  Wood  escaped.  The 


434  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

Sheriff  returned  on  the  next  day  with  more  writs,  and 
undertook  to  arrest  S.  F.  Tappan.  Tappan  resisted 
and  struck  the  Sheriff.  Jones  went  at  once  to  the 
Governor,  and  the  Governor  gave  him  a  detachment  of 
United  States  soldiers.  With  these  he  returned  to  Law 
rence,  but  they  could  find  no  one  for  whom  the  Sheriff 
had  a  writ.  The  party  pitched  tent  at  Lawrence  to 
spend  the  night.  After  darkness  came  on,  some  wretch, 
then  unknown  to  the  "Free-state"  leaders,  approached 
the  tent  and  shot  the  Sheriff,  wounding  him  danger 
ously.  This  was  an  almost  irreparable  blow  to  the 
"  Free-state  "  cause.  The  very  thing  which  the  "  Free- 
state  "  leaders  had  sought  most  earnestly  to  avoid  had 
been  thrust  upon  them  by  the  criminal  deed  of  some 
meddlesome  crank.  The  "  Free-state"  men  recognized 
at  once  the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  and,  on  the  morn- 
The  outrage  ing  following  the  event,  held  a  meeting,  at 
repudia^by  w}1|c}1  the  outrage  was  repudiated  and  de- 
state"  men.  nounced,  and  a  reward  of  five  hundred  dollars 
offered  for  the  apprehension  of  the  criminal.  Colonel 
Sumner,  the  commander  of  the  United  States  troops  in 
Kansas,  wrote  to  Dr.  Robinson,  urging  him  to  use  every 
effort  to  move  the  citizens  of  Lawrence  to  bring  the  as 
sassin  to  justice,  as  his  act  would  be  charged  by  the 
pro-slavery  men  upon  the  whole  community.  The 
Doctor  replied  at  once  that  the  community  repudiated 
the  foul  deed,  and  would  certainly  bring  the  guilty  par 
ty  to  justice  if  he  could  be  found.  There  was  no  mu 
nicipal  government  in  Lawrence  at  the  time,  and  Dr. 
Robinson  acted,  in  his  reply  to  Colonel  Sumner,  as  a 
sort  of  self-constituted  representative  of  the  citizens. 
He  certainly  represented  the  views  of  the  large  majority 
of  them,  but  there  were  some  who,  at  the  time,  knew 
who  the  guilty  person  was,  and  gave  no  sign  which 
would  aid  in  his  discovery. 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOK   KANSAS  435 

The  Sheriff's  wound  was  not  fatal,  but  it  was  reported 
that  he  was  dead,  and  the  Missourians  began  to  organize 
for  another  invasion.  Before  they  were  ready,  Judge  Le 
the  Territorial  judiciary  came  to  their  assist-  ch°ar™ePtoethe 
ance.  Chief  Justice  Lecompte  charged  the  Grand  Jury. 
Grand  Jury  of  Douglas  County,  in  the  early  part  of 
May,  that  resistance  to  the  Territorial  laws  was  high 
treason  against  the  United  States,  and  that  entering 
into  combinations  for  the  purpose  of  making  such  re 
sistance  was  constructive  treason,  and  instructed  the 
body  to  find  true  bills  against  all  persons  guilty  of  such 
offences.  This  was  a  most  astounding  piece  of  jurispru 
dence.  It  looked  like  nothing  but  a  trick  to  deprive  the 
"Free-state"  men  of  their  leaders,  since  one  arrested 
for  treason  was  considered  as  not  having  the  privilege  of 
bail. 

The  Grand  Jury  found  indictments  against  nine  or  ten 
persons,  among  them  Robinson,  Reeder,  and  Lane,  and 
also  against  two  newspapers  published  in  Tfae  (i^& 
Lawrence,  and  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company's  son  indict- 

UlGlltS  " 

hotel  there.  The  indictments  were  put  in 
the  hands  of  the  United  States  Marshal  for  the  Terri 
tory,  J.  B.  Donaldson.  On  May  llth,  Donaldson  issued 
a  proclamation,  declaring  that  the  service  of  these  writs 
by  his  deputy  had  been  resisted  in  Lawrence,  and  call 
ing  "  the  law-abiding  citizens  of  the  Territory  to  appear 
at  Lecompton,  as  soon  as  possible,  and  in  numbers  suffi 
cient  for  the  proper  execution  of  the  law."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  only  Reeder  had  resisted  service,  and  had  suc 
ceeded  in  escaping.  All  the  others,  except  Lane  and 
Wood,  were  taken  into  custody  without  difficulty. 
Reeder's  justification  was  that  he  was  at  the  moment  in 
attendance,  as  a  witness,  upon  the  Congressional  com 
mittee  sent  to  the  Territory,  and  was,  therefore,  legally 
exempt  from  arrest  at  the  time. 


436  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  Marshal  did  not  publish  his  proclamation  in  Law 
rence,  but  a  copy  of  it  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  Lawrence 
The  Mar-  citizen,  who  hastened  to  make  known  to 
m a& u oPi°Cin  ^ie  people  the  peril  which  was  impending. 
Lawrence.  The  citizens  already  knew  of  forces  being  or 
ganized,  both  in  the  Territory  and  in  Missouri,  against 
Lawrence,  and  had  demanded  the  Governor's  protection 
against  them.  The  Governor  had  replied  that  he  knew 
of  no  force  near  or  approaching  Lawrence,  except  the 
posse  under  the  orders  of  the  United  States  Marshal  and 
the  Sheriff  of  Douglas  County,  who  had  writs  to  serve 
in  Lawrence,  and  that  he  should  not  interfere. 

The  citizens  of  Lawrence  now  held  a  meeting  and 
passed  formal  resolutions,  declaring  that  the  charges  con 
tained  in  the  Marshal's  proclamation  were 

The  action  £ 

of  the  citizens  untrue,  and  that  the  citizens  were  not  only 

of  Lawrence.  ,  , ,  „ 

ready  to  acquiesce  in  the  service  01  any  ju 
dicial  writs  against  them  by  the  United  States  Marshal, 
but  to  furnish  him  a  posse,  if  required,  to  aid  him  in 
the  discharge  of  his  duty.  And  after  receiving  the  Gov 
ernor's  reply,  they  appealed  to  the  Marshal,  asking  him 
to  state  his  demands,  promising  not  to  resist  the  service 
of  his  processes,  but  to  aid  him  in  the  discharge  of  his 
legal  duties,  and  praying  his  protection  against  the  law 
less  bands  collecting  about  their  town  for  the  purpose  of 
its  destruction. 

The  Marshal  replied  in  a  flippant  and  sarcastic  man 
ner,  saying  that  his  correspondents  must  be  strangers  in 
The  Mar-  Lawrence  if  they  were  ignorant  of  the  de- 
ehai'B  reply.  mands  against  the  citizens  of  the  town,  refer 
ring  in  exaggerated  language  to  the  shooting  of  Jones, 
and  Eeeder's  resistance  to  his  deputy,  and  to  the  military 
organization  and  equipment  of  the  people  of  Lawrence, 
and  declaring  that  he  should  execute  all  processes  in  his 
hands  in  his  own  time  and  way. 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  437 

Three  days  later,  on  May  17th,  the  citizens  communi 
cated  again  with  the  Marshal,  calling  his  attention  to  the 
depredations  committed  by  the  bands  around  Appeal  of 
Lawrence,  asking  if  he  was  responsible  for  ^ctfee^to 
these  bodies,  and  demanding  protection  from  and  the  GOV- 
him  against  them.  At  the  same  time,  the 
managers  of  the  hotel  appealed  to  the  Governor  to  pro 
tect  their  property,  and  carried  with  them  an  offer  from 
the  citizens  to  give  up  their  arms  to  Colonel  Sumner,  if 
he  would  station  a  detachment  of  United  States  soldiers 
in  the  town  for  their  protection. 

The  Marshal  and  the  Governor  thought  favorably  of 
this  proposition.  They  were  willing  to  guarantee  the 
safety  of  the  citizens  and  their  individual 

*  The  hotel 

property,  but  they  thought  they  must  con-  and  the  print- 
suit  with  the  captains  of  the  squads  compos 
ing  the  posse  before  they  could  give  such  assurances  in 
regard  to  the  hotel  and  the  printing  offices.  These 
persons  were  found  to  be  determined  on  the  destruction 
of  the  printing  offices,  certainly,  and  of  the  hotel, 
probably.  Colonel  Titus,  of  Florida,  declared  that  the 
South  Carolina  boys  in  the  posse  would  be  satisfied  with 
nothing  short  of  the  destruction  of  the  printing  offices. 

The  hotel  managers  and  the  representatives  of  the 
citizens  turned  again  to  the  Governor  and  implored 
him  to  send  the  United  States  soldiers  for  the  protection 
of  the  town,  but  he  again  refused  to  interfere  ;  and, 
finally,  when  they  said  to  him  that  they  feared  the 
citizens  would  be  compelled  to  defend  themselves  by 
armed  power,  and  precipitate  the  horrors  of  civil  war, 
he  answered  angrily,  while  striding  out  of  their  pres 
ence  :  ' '  War  then  it  is,  by  God  ! " 

On  the  morning  of  the  21st,  the  Marshal's  armed  force 
appeared  upon  one  of  the  heights  overlooking  the  town, 
displaying  first  a  white  flag,  then  a  red  one,  and,  lastly, 


438  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

the  flag  of  the  United  States.    The  Deputy-marshal  then 

entered  the  town  with  a  small  posse,  and  called  the  man- 

The  sacking  agers  of  the  hotel  and  several  of  the  citi- 

of  Lawrence.      zeng    ^    J0]n    Jjjg   p0gse   an(J  assist  him  in  the 

service  of  his  writs.  They  obeyed,  and  two  persons 
were  arrested.  The  Deputy,  with  his  force  and  his 
prisoners,  returned  to  the  camp.  Colonel  C.  W.  Topliff, 
a  prominent  citizen,  went  with  them,  bearing  a  com 
munication  from  the  committee  of  safety  of  Lawrence  to 
the  Marshal,  in  which  the  pr6mise  of  obedience  to  his 
processes  was  again  made,  and  his  protection  claimed. 

It  was  hoped  that  the  crisis  was  now  passed.  The 
Marshal  dismissed  his  posse.  But  the  Sheriff  immedi 
ately  reorganized  the  bands  as  Ms  posse.  This  was  most 
ominous  of  evil.  The  Sheriff  was  burning  with  passion 
for  personal  revenge.  In  the  middle  of  the  afternoon 
(May  2 1st),  he  rode  into  the  town  at  the  head  of  his 
army,  and,  in  spite  of  every  plea  and  remonstrance, 
caused  the  contents  of  the  printing  offices  to  be  scattered 
through  the  streets  and  the  hotel  to  be  burned,  and 
allowed  the  pillage,  and  even  the  burning,  of  private 
houses. 

The  atrocious  and  disgraceful  deed  of  sacking  Law 
rence  was  denounced  by  many  of  the  persons  who  had 
Repudiation  joined  the  Marshal's  posse.  General  Atch- 
Atchison^and  ison  tried  to  prevent  the  Sheriff  from  thus 
others.  wreaking  his  vengeance,  and  denounced  his 

deed  afterward.  Jackson,  the  leader  of  the  Georgians, 
and  Buford,  the  captain  of  the  Alabama  squad,  also 
denounced  the  vile  procedure,  and  declared  that  they 
had  not  come  to  Kansas  to  destroy  property. 

Atchison  knew  well  enough  that  a  great  blow  had 
been  given  to  the  prospects  of  the  Democratic  party  in 
the  now  approaching  presidential  election.  What,  then, 
must  have  been  his  despair  upon  learning  that  an  attack, 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  439 

even  more  outrageous  than  the  sacking  of  Lawrence, 
had  been  made,  at  the  same  time,  upon  the  defender  of 
"  Free-state  "  Kansas  in  the  Senate  chamber  at  Wash 
ington  ? 

The  debate  on  the  bills  for  the  admission  of  "  Free- 
state  "  Kansas  had  progressed  from  day  to  day,  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  with  increasing  earnestness  and 
excitement.  At  length,  on  May  19th  and  20th,  Mr. 
Sumner  delivered  his  fierce  philippic  on  the 

The    stt&clt 

".Crime  against  Kansas."  It  was  not  only  on  senator 
an  unvarnished  statement  of  the  case  from 
the  Abolitionist  point  of  view,  but  it  was  a  personal 
arraignment  of  several  of  the  Senators.  The  attack 
contained  in  it  upon  Senator  Butler,  of  South  Carolina, 
a  gentleman  of  great  refinement  and  politeness,  and 
much  honored  and  esteemed  by  his  associates,  was  espe 
cially  coarse  and  brutal.  Almost  all  the  Senators  felt 
the  attack  to  be  more  than  a  discourtesy.  Senator  But 
ler  was  in  ill  health  arid  was  absent  from  his  seat,  both 
of  which  circumstances  made  the  affair  all  the  more 
exasperating.  For  two  days  the  Capital  rang  with 
denunciations  of  the  insulting  speech,  when  Preston  S. 
Brooks,  a  nephew  of  Senator  Butler,  and  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  demanded  and  took  satis 
faction  of  Mr.  Sumner  for  the  attack  upon  his  kinsman. 
Had  he  carried  out  his  purpose  in  a  brave  and  manly 
way,  he  would  have  been  generally  applauded  for  it,  but 
being  a  small,  weak  man  physically,  while  Sumner  was 
a  powerful  athlete,  Brooks  had  recourse  to  a  method 
which  stamped  him  as  a  coward,  and  his  attack  upon 
Sumner  as  a  brutal  outrage.  He  entered  the  Senate 
chamber  011  May  22nd,  after  the  adjournment  of  the 
body,  and  approaching  Mr.  Sumner,  who  was  seated 
and  bending  over  his  desk,  charged  him  with  libel  on 
South  Carolina  and  her  sons,  and  struck  him  with  a 


440  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

cane  upon  the  head  until  the  Senator  became  helpless 
and  unconscious.  With  this,  Sumner's  outrage  upon 
Butler  was  entirely  lost  sight  of  in  Brooks's  far  more 
brutal  outrage  upon  Sumner. 

The  cowardly  deed  was  looked  upon  everywhere  in 
the  North  as  the  fit  companion-piece  to  the  sacking  of 
Lawrence.  The  indignation  of  the  North  was  roused  to 
the  highest  pitch,  and  it  seemed  as  if  the  elections  of  1856 
must  bring  the  anti-slavery  party  into  the  seats  of  power. 

But  just  at  this  most  critical  juncture,  when  every 
thing  depended  on  calmness  and  moderation  on  the  part 
•of  the  " Free-state"  men  to  secure  imme- 
wattomiemas-  diate  victory,  and  when  immediate  victory, 
thus  pursued,  was,  so  far  as  human  eye  can 
discern,  within  their  grasp,  an  outrage  was  perpetrated 
by  a  gang  of  men,  or  rather  fiends,  who  claimed  some 
sort  of  relation  to  the  "  Free-state"  party,  which  so  far 
overshadowed  in  cruel  atrocity  all  that  had  gone  before 
as  to  produce  a  revulsion  of  feeling  most  damaging  to 
the  "  Free-state  "  cause.  On  May  23rd,  John  Brown, 
with  six  or  seven  others,  all,  except  two,  members  of  his 
own  family,  went  to  the  settlement  about  Dutch  Henry's 
Crossing  on  the  Pottawattomie  Creek,  and,  on  the  night 
of  the  24th,  took  five  men,  innocent  of  anything  which 
could  even  justify  arrest  by  proper  authorities,  from 
their  cabins,  and  murdered  them,  cutting  and  slashing 
their  bodies  with  cutlasses,  until  their  savage  thirst  for 
blood  was  partially  satiated.  So  barbarously  atrocious 
was  the  deed,  so  calculated  to  rouse  the  sentiment  of  the 
whole  country  against  the  "Free-state"  cause  in  Kan 
sas,  that  the  Republican  members  of  the  Congressional 
committee  of  investigation  in  the  Territory  refused  to 
make  the  event  a  part  of  their  inquiry.  The  Demo 
cratic  member,  Mr.  Oliver,  investigated  it,  and  reported 
it  to  Congress  and  to  the  public. 


THE  STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  441 

No  sane  mind  can  find  the  slightest  justification,  ex 
cuse,  or  palliation  for  this  atrocious  crime.  It  was  mur 
der,  pure  and  simple.  And  when  we  consider  the  pur 
pose  for  which,  as  well  as  the  mind  with  which,  it  was 
committed,  it  became,  in  addition  to  common  crime,  also 
public  crime  of  the  most  grievous  nature.  Dr.  Robinson 
says  it  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  involving  the  North 
and  the  South  in  war  against  each  other.  Thus  to 
the  murderous  mind  was  added  the  seditious  purpose. 
Some  men  have  professed  to  find  virtue  in  this  noxious 
compound,  but  such  minds  have  lost  their  moorings, 
and  are  roaming  without  star  or  compass  over  the  bor 
der  lands  between  reason  and  insanity.  To  murder, 
Brown  and  his  vile  brood  added  robbery  ;  but  this  was  so 
slight  a  crime  in  comparison  with  the  other  that  it  may 
be  passed  without  further  notice. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  region  were  thrown  into  the 
greatest  consternation  and  excitement.  The  pro-slavery 
and  the  anti-slavery  men  assembled  together,  The  excite. 
denounced  the  horrible  deed  as  foulest  mur-  ment  pro- 

-,  -i  T       T     .  ,  „  duced  by  them. 

der,  and  resolved  to  act  together  as  men  of 

reason  and  common  sense  for  the  maintenance  of  peace 

and  order  and  the  suppression  of  crime. 

For  a  few  days  it  was  not  known  who  the  authors  of 
these  murders  were,  but  suspicion  soon  pointed  to  Brown 
and  his  gang,  and  steps  were  taken  to  procure  warrants 
for  their  arrest.  The  Governor,  also,  sent  down  a  body 
of  troops  to  the  scene  of  the  massacre.  The  troops  were 
volunteers,  chiefly  Missourians,  commanded  The  battle  at 
by  a  Captain  Pate.  Pate's  force  met  Brown's  Black  Jack> 
at  Black  Jack,  and  Brown  captured  Pate  and  his  men. 
This  was  June  2nd.  With  nothing  to  hinder  him  for 
the  moment,  Brown  now  robbed  and  pillaged  all  around. 
By  the  3rd,  however,  the  Missourians,  led  by  Whit  field, 
were  rallying  to  the  aid  of  their  pro-slavery  friends  in 


442  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Kansas,,  and  by  the  5th,,  battle  was  impending  between 
the  Missourians  and  the    "Free-state"  men.,  who  had 
gathered  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  excitement.     The 
The  Govern-   Governor  had  at  last  comprehended  the  seri- 
n-   ous  character  of  the  situation.      He  issued 
States  his  proclamation  warning  invaders  to  retire, 
and  commanding  armed  and  illegal  organiza 
tions  to  disperse.     And  he  sent  Colonel  Sumner  with  a 
company  of  regular  cavalry  to  the  scene  of  action. 

Sumner  rescued  Pate  and  his  men,  dispersed  Brown's 
gang,  and  ordered  the  Missourians  to  get  out  of  Kansas. 
He  did  not  arrest  Brown,  because  he  had  no  warrant  for 
his  apprehension,  and  did  not  know,  at  the  time,  that 
he  was  the  author  of  the  Potta \vattomie  murders.  Sum 
ner  remained  a  fortnight  or  more  in  southern  Kansas 
until  the  excitement  was  somewhat  spent,  and  then  re 
turned  to  Fort  Leavenworth.  Brown  disappeared,  and 
a  measure  of  peace  was  momentarily  restored. 

The  Pottawattomie  murders,  and  the  robberies  suc 
ceeding  them,  had,  however,  greatly  damaged  the  "  Free- 
Tne"Free-  s^e "  cause-     The  great  advantage   which 
state"   caase  had   accrued   to   it  through  the  sacking  of 

greatly  injured 

By  Brown's  Lawrence   and   the   outrage    upon    Senator 
Sumner  was  now  largely  lost  again.     Still, 
emigration  from  the  Northern  Commonwealths  to  Kan 
sas  continued  in  great  activity,  and  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  at  Washington  was  steadily  advancing  toward 
the  passage  of  the  resolution  for  the  admission  of  "  Free- 
state"  Kansas  into  the  Union,  although  the  flight  of 
its  committee  of  investigation  from  the  Ter- 
of  tnePbm  for  ritory,  in  consequence  of  the  excitement  fol- 

the  admission    ,        .     '      . ,  -,  . ,        -.^    . 

of  Kansas  by  lowing  the  murders  on  the  Pottawattomie, 
1Be'       and  the  two  reports  which  its  members  made 
of  the  situation  in  Kansas,  exercised  an  unfavorable  in 
fluence  on  the  movement.     The  House  passed  the  bill, 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  443 

however,  on  July  3rd,  by  a  majority  of  two  votes,  but 
it  would  admit  neither  of  the  claimants  to  a  seat  in  the 
House. 

On  the  other  hand,  Colonel  Sumner,  while  personally 
in  sympathy  with  the  "  Free-state  "  cause,  felt  it  to  be 
his  official  duty  to  disperse  the  "  Free-state"  Diepereal  of 
legislature  which  assembled  at  Topeka  on  J^,;'^1;^- 
July  4th.  The  President  and  the  Secretary  ttm?byeeo:o- 
of  War,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis,  subsequently  ' 
disapproved  of  this  act,  and  denied  that  the  authority 
for  it  was  either  expressed  or  implied  in  any  of  their 
instructions  to  Colonel  Sumner.  The  Colonel  thought 
the  contrary,  and  felt  that  the  unpopularity  of  the  pro 
cedure  throughout  the  North  had  caused  the  President 
and  the  Secretary  to  disavow  a  responsibility  for  it  which 
was  rightfully  their  own.  A  careful  reading  of  the  dis 
patches  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Colonel  did 
exceed  his  powers.  He  was,  doubtless,  led  to  do  so  un 
consciously  by  the  violent  deeds  of  men  professing  con 
nection  with  the  "  Free-state  "  party.  The  misunder 
standing  led  finally  to  the  retirement  of  Colonel  Sumner 
from  the  command  of  the  United  States  forces  in  Kan 
sas,  and  the  assignment  of  General  P.  F.  Smith  to  that 
duty. 

After  the  dispersion  of  the  "  Free-state"  legislature, 
the  "  Free-state  "  men,  who  were  gathered  in  Lawrence, 
held  a  convention,  and  elected  a  committee, 

Tn6  '*  P  rcc~ 

whose  duty  it  should  be  to  look  after  the  in-  state"  Direc- 
terests  of  the  people.  This  committee  se 
lected  from  among  its  members  a  sub-committee  of  five, 
and  transferred  all  of  its  powers  and  duties  to  this  sub 
committee.  The  "  Free-state  "  government  had  now 
become  a  directorial  board  of  five  persons,  chief  among 
whom  were  William  Hutchinson  and  James  Blood.  The 
seat  of  this  Directory  was  Lawrence. 


444  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

The  Directory  organized  a  strong  military  force  under 
the  command  of  Colonel  Walker.     This  force  attacked 

The  organi-  and  broke  up  three  pro-slavery  bands  during 
"aFrene-s°lte^  the  month  of  August,  the  last  one  at  Fort 
military.  Titus,  near  Lecompton,  and  commanded  by 
the  noted  Colonel  Titus  himself.  Titus  and  his  men 
were  captured. 

The  Governor  now  became  alarmed  for  his  own  safety. 
Accompanied  by  Major  Sedgwick,  he  went  to  Lawrence, 

The  Treaty  on  August  17th,  and  concluded  with  the 
of  August  Directory  the  noted  agreement  of  that  date, 
the  terms  of  which  were,  that  the  "Free- 
state  "  men  should  keep  the  arms  which  they  had  capt 
ured  from  the  pro-slavery  bands  ;  that  the  howitzer 
taken  from  Lawrence-  should  be  retured  to  the  town  ; 
that  all  persons  arrested  by  the  United  States  Marshal, 
under  charge  of  participating  in  the  attack  upon  the 
pro-slavery  band  at  Franklin,  should  be  delivered  un 
harmed  to  the  Directory  ;  that  the  Governor  should 
disband  the  Territorial  militia,  order  all  bands  of  armed 
men  to  disperse,  and  command  all  armed  bands  of  non 
residents  to  leave  the  Territory.  The  Directory  engaged, 

Resignation  upon  its  side,  to  release  Titus  and  his  men. 
of  shannon.  The  Governor  virtually  surrendered  to  the 
Directory.  He  then  returned  to  Lecompton,  resigned 
his  office,  and  made  his  way  back  to  Ohio. 

Secretary  Woodson  was  now  again  in  the  Governor's 
chair,  and  this,  of  itself,  was  notice  to  the  Missourians  to 

Woodson' s  come  on*  They  had  already  gathered  on  the 
proclamation,  border.  On  August  25th,  Woodson  pub- 

cUitl    tn6  H6W 

invasion  from  lished  a  proclamation,  in  which  he  declared 
the  Territory  to  be  "  in  a  state  of  open  in 
surrection  and  rebellion/'  called  "upon  all  law-abiding 
citizens  of  the  Territory  to  rally  to  the  support  of  their 
country  and  its  laws,"  and  commanded  "all  officers, 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  445 

civil  and  military,  and  all  other  citizens  of  the  Territory, 
to  aid  and  assist  by  all  means  in  their  power  in  putting 
down  the  insurrectionists." 

The  Missourians  took  this  as  an  invitation  to  advance. 
They  entered  the  Territory  again,  on  the  29th,  and 
pitched  their  camp  on  Bull  Creek.  Atchison  was  in  com 
mand.  On  the  13th,  a  detachment  of  them  attacked 
and  destroyed  Ossawattomie.  About  a  dozen  men  were 
killed  in  the  fight. 

General  Smith  now  issued  instructions  that  the  United 
States  troops  should  not  "  interfere  with  persons  who 
may  have  come  from  a  distance  to  give  pro-  General 
tection  to  their  friends  or  others,  and  who  SSe^oward 
may  be  behaving  themselves  in  a  peaceable  invaders- 
and  lawful  manner."  This  attitude  seemed  at  first  view 
to  be  friendly  to  the  pro-slavery  men ;  but  the  friends 
of  the  "  Free-state  "  men  were  nov,r  pouring  into  the 
Territory  by  way  of  Iowa  and  Nebraska,  and  Smith's 
order  worked  ultimately  to  their  advantage.  Unques 
tionably  the  General  intended  to  be  impartial. 

The  attack  on  Ossawattomie  roused  the  " Free-state" 
men  to  new  exertions.  Three  hundred  of 

iVlii  r  c  n  i  n  ff 

them,  commanded  by  Lane,  advanced  upon  and   counter- 
the  camp  at  Bull  Creek.     The  two  forces 
drew  up  in  battle  array,  but,  after  a  slight  skirmish, 
they  both  drew  off. 

Acting  Governor  Woodson  now  ordered  Colonel  Cooke 
to  attack  Topeka  with  United  States  troops,  but  the 
Colonel  refused  to  obey  the  order,  and  General  Smith 
sustained  him. 

The  "Free-state"  men  now  planned  an  attack  upon 
Lecompton.  They  moved  in  two  separate  columns,  one 
commanded  by  Harvey  and  the  other  by  Lane.  The 
attack  was  to  be  made  on  September  4th,  but  the  failure 
of  Lane's  column  to  arrive  until  the  5th  enabled  the 


446  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

United  States  soldiers  to  reach  the  town  first.  When 
the  "  Free-state  "  men  learned  that  the  regulars  were  in 
the  town,  they  returned  to  Lawrence. 

The  Missourians  were  now  roused  to  serious  and  de 
cided  action.     An  army  of  some  three  thousand  of  them 
had  gathered  on  the  border,  and  was  on  the 

The  failure          .  .          . 

of  "Popular  point  of  marching  in  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
m  the  Terri-  stroying  every  "  Free-state"  settlement  in  the 
Territory.  Only  one  thing  could  now  save 
the  Territory  from  thoroughgoing  and  relentless  civil 
war,  and  that  was  the  interference  of  the  United  States 
army.  The  fiasco  of  "popular  sovereignty"  in  the 
Territories  was  at  last  complete.  The  general  Govern 
ment  must  assume  control. 

The  President's  eyes  had  at  last  been  opened  to  the 
fact,  that  if  he  allowed  things  to  drift  any  farther  in 
Release  o  f  Kansas,  the  Republicans  would  win  the  pres- 
tne  "treason  idential  election  in  November.     He,  there- 
ana  appoint-  fore,  resolved  to  put  the  government  of  the 

ment  of  Geary.    rr,        ..  ...  1-111          TT          ^         -i 

Territory  into  impartial  hands.  He  ordered 
the  United  States  Marshal  to  release  Robinson  and  his 
colleagues ;  appointed  J.  W.  Geary,  of  Pennsylvania,  a 
man  of  strong  character,  Governor  of  the  Territory  ;  and 
authorized  Geary  to  call  the  United  States  troops  to  his 
assistance.  Geary  arrived  at  Lecompton  on  September 
10th.  On  the  12th,  he  went  to  Lawrence,  and,  after  prom 
ising  the  "  Free-state  "  men  protection  against  the  Mis 
sourians,  returned  to  Lecompton.  On  the  14th,  the  force 
The  new  advancing  on  Lawrence  arrived  in  the  neigh- 
Governor  es-  borhood  of  the  town.  Word  was  immediate- 

tablishes  peace 

by  means  of  ly  sent  to  the  Governor.  The  Governor  sum- 
the  united  moned  a  detachment  of  United  States  sol 
diers,  and  set  out  for  the  scene  of  action. 
On  the  morning  of  the  loth,  he  met  the  army  of  Missou 
rians  and  interposed  the  United  States  army  between 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS  447 

them  and  Lawrence.  The  Governor  informed  the  Mis 
souri  leaders  that  they  must  leave  the  Territory.  They 
dared  not  put  themselves  in  an  attitude  of  hostility  to 
the  military  power  of  the  Union,  and  quickly  retreated 
back  to  Missouri.  With  this  the  warfare  inaugurated 
by  the  murders  on  the  Pottawattomie  ended.  The 
Governor  had  at  last  brought  peace  to  the  distracted 
Territory,  but  at  the  expense  of  the  principle  of  home 
rule  in  the  Territory,  and  upon  the  point  of  the  sword 
of  the  Union. 

The  establishment  of  order  in  Kansas  saved  the 
Democratic  party,  according  to  the  general  opinion, 
from  the  threatened  defeat  in  the  November 
election,  and  made  Buchanan,  instead  of  the  AdmMs- 
Fremont,  President.  After  the  danger  was  fe 
over,  the  Administration  became  less  hearty  in  its  sup 
port  of  Geary  ;  and  when  Geary  virtually  espoused  the 
"  Free-state"  cause,  as  he  did  during  the  winter  of 
1856-57,  the  Administration  became  largely  estranged 
from  him.  He  resigned  in  disgust  on  the  day  of 
Buchanan's  inauguration  to  power. 

The  next  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  struggle 
for  Kansas  was  to  come  from  an  entirely  new  quarter. 
The  new  President  indicated,  in  his  inau-  The  judicial 
gural,  whence  it  was  to  come,  if  not  what  it  ^KanaashSE 
was  to  be.  He  said  :  "A  difference  of  opin-  tory- 
ion  has  arisen  in  regard  to  the  point  of  time  when  the 
people  of  a  Territory  shall  decide  this  question" — the 
question  of  slavery — ' ( for  themselves.  This  is,  happily, 
a  matter  of  but  little  practical  importance.  Besides  it 
is  a  judicial  question,  which  legitimately  belongs  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  before  whom  it  is 
now  pending,  and  will,  it  is  understood,  be  speedily  and 
finally  settled."  The  President  referred  to  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  which  had  been  twice  argued  before  the 


448  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Supreme  Court,  and  decision  upon  which,  it  was  under 
stood,  would  be  published  to  the  world  in  a  few  days. 
We  must,  therefore,  break  the  thread  of  Kansas  history 
here  for  a  moment,  and  trace  the  history  of  this  case 
down  to  the  point  where  it  becomes  connected  with  the 
further  history  of  the  Territory. 


L 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE   DRED   SCOTT  CASE 

The  Origin  of  tlie  Dred  Scott  Case— Two  Dred  Scott  Cases— The 
Facts  of  the  Cases — The  Case  in  the  Missouri  Courts — The  Case 
in  the  United  States  Courts — The  Case  a  Genuine  Proceeding 
— The  Decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States — 
The  Dissenting  Opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Curtis — Criticism  of 
the  Court's  Opinion— The  Obiter  Dictum— The  Chief  Justice 
and  the  President— Justice  Curtis's  Dissent  Continued — The 
Printing  and  Distribution  of  the  Decision  and  the  Dissenting 
Opinion — The  Doctrine  of  Popular  Sovereignty  in  the  Terri 
tories  Overthrown  by  the  Opinion  of  the  Court. 

THE  time  has  come  when  the  correct  story  of  the 
Dred  Scott  case  may  be  told,  and  should  be  told.  The 
author  of  this  volume  has  been  so  fortunate 
as  to  obtain  from  A.  C.  Crane,  Esq.,  of  St.  0fT1the  °5f§! 
Louis,  an  account  of  the  early  history  of  the  Scottcase- 
case,  which  is  entirely  original  and  authentic.  Mr. 
Crane  was,  at  the  time  that  the  case  was  brought  in  the 
Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  a  clerk  in  the  law 
office  of  the  great  lawyer  who  espoused  Dred  Scott's 
case,  and  who  freely  gave  his  legal  services  to  the  work 
of  securing  the  negro's  freedom,  Eoswell  M.  Field.  Mr. 
Field  was  a  native  of  Vermont,  and  a  strong  anti-slavery 
man.  He  was  utterly  incapable  of  any  collusion  with 
slaveholders  for  the  getting  up  of  a  case,  through  which 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  might  be 
brought  to  support  the  cause  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories,  the  purpose  charged  by  many  of  the  anti-slavery 
29 


450  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

men  of  the  North  for  which  this  case  was  created.  Mr. 
Crane  most  emphatically  declares  that  Mr.  Field  was  in 
fluenced  to  undertake  the  case  only  by  humanitarian 
motives  of  the  highest  order. 

There  were,  indeed,  two  Dred  Scott  cases,  one  in  the 
courts  of  Missouri,  and  one  in  the  United  States  courts, 

TWO  Dred  but  they  had  no  connection  with  each  other. 
Scott  cases.  The  cage  Decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  originated  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States,  and  did  not  come  up  on  a  writ  of  error 
from  the  Missouri  court. 

The  facts  in  the  two  cases  were,  however,  the  same. 
One  Dr.  Emerson,  the  owner  of  Dred  Scott,  had  taken 

The  facts  of  Dred,  as  his  slave,  into  Illinois,  a  Common 
wealth  in  which  slavery  was  forbidden,  and 
then  into  the  Louisiana  territory  above  the  latitude 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes,  where  slavery  was 
prohibited  by  the  Congressional  Act  of  1820  ;  had 
allowed  Dred  to  marry  in  the  free  territory ;  had  pur 
chased  the  woman  he  married  from  an  army  officer 
at  a  post  within  the  same ;  and  had  taken  Dred 
back  to  Missouri,  with  his  wife  and  a  child  born  to 
them  on  free  territory,  and  held  them  as  slaves  in 
Missouri.  Dr.  Emerson's  return  to  Missouri  was  in 
1838.  In  1844  the  Doctor  died,  leaving  Dred  and  his 
wife  and  child  to  Mrs.  Emerson.  According  to  the 
statement  of  facts  recited  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States,  Dr.  Emerson  sold  Dred  and  his  family  to 
a  Mr.  Sandf ord,  a  citizen  of  New  York,  the  defendant  in 
the  case  before  the  Supreme  Court,  but  Mr.  Crane  says 
that  Dr.  Emerson's  will,  in  the  Probate  Office  at  St. 
Louis,  shows  that  Dred  and  his  family  belonged  to  the 
Doctor  at  the  time  of  the  latter's  death,  and  that  Dred 
told  him  that  such  was  the  case.  Mr.  Crane  also  says 
that  Dred  told  him  that,  after  the  Doctor's  death,  Mrs. 


THE    DEED    SCOTT   CASE  451 

Emerson  hired  him  out  to  different  persons,  and  that  he 
became  dissatisfied  with  this  treatment,  and  resolved  to 
sue  for  his  freedom. 

This  first  suit  was  brought  in  one  of  the  inferior 
courts  of  Missouri,  and  was  decided  in  Dred's  favor. 
Mrs.  Emerson  appealed  the  case  to  the  su- 

TllG  C9.8G  in 

preme  court   of   Missouri,  and   two  of  the   the  MiBsouri 
three  judges  upon  that  bench  held  that  the 
condition  of  slavery  reattached  to  the  negro  upon  his 
being  brought  back  into  Missouri,  and  reversed  the  de 
cision  of  the  lower  court. 

While  the  case  in  the  Missouri  courts  was  in  progress 
Mrs.  Emerson  made  over  the  control  of  the  Scotts  to  a 
relative  of  hers,  a  Mr.  Sandford,  then  a  citizen  of  New 
York,  who  hired  them  out  to  residents  of  Missouri.  It 
was  then,  and  for  this  reason,  that  Dred  appealed  to 
Eoswell  M.  Field  for  his  powerful  aid  in  bringing  suit 
against  Sandford  in  the  Courts  of  the  United  States. 

The  case  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States 
was  begun  before  the  case  in  the  Missouri  court  was  con 
cluded.    The  defendant  in  the  Circuit  Court 
of  the  United  States  first  pleaded  that  Dred  the  United 
was  not  a  citizen  of  Missouri,  and  could  not 
be,  since  he  was  a  negro  and  descended  from  slaves  held 
in  the  United  States,  but  the  court  overruled  the  plea, 
that  is,  decided  that  Dred  Scott  could  be  party  in  a  suit 
in  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

The  evidence  in  the  case  consisted  simply  of  a  state 
ment  of  facts  agreed  upon  by  the  two  parties.  The 
pleas  then  put  forward  by  the  defendant  in  bar  of  the 
action  were  argued,  on  the  basis  of  this  statement,  and 
the  court  ordered  the  jury  to  find  for  the  defendant. 
Judgment  was  rendered  in  his  favor  in  the  month  of 
April,  1854. 

Mr.  Field  then  carried  the  case  to  the  Supreme  Court 


452  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

of  the  United  States,  upon  a  writ  of  error,  and  secured 
the  services  of  his  friend,  the  Hon.  Montgomery  Blair, 
for  the  negro.  Mr.  Blair  undertook  the  management  of 
the  case  at  Washington,  and,  like  Mr.  Field,  gave  his 
time  and  labor  without  pecuniary  reward.  The  court 
costs  incurred  by  Dred  in  both  cases  were  paid  by  Taylor 
Blow,  son  of  the  man  who  sold  Dred  to  Doctor  Emerson. 

There  is  certainly  not  the  slightest  evidence  in  this 
history  of  the  case  that  the  case  was  anything  but  a 
The  case  a  genuine  proceeding  from  beginning  to  end, 
genuine  pro-  conducted  by  anti-slavery  men,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  securing  the  freedom  of  an  intelli 
gent  and  worthy  African,  who  had  been  taken  volun 
tarily  by  his  master  upon  free  soil,  and  had  thus  been 
made,  by  the  principles  of  the  common  law,  a  free  man. 

The  case  was  argued  twice  with  great  learning  before 

the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  decision  finally  reached  was 

virtually  acquiesced  in  by  seven  of  the  nine 

Thedecision    _      ,.       J      ,/}  ,       T      ,.J       „  .  , 

by  the  Su-  Justices,  although  Justice  kelson  did  not 
oPtSe  United  give  his  assent  to  any  part  of  the  opinion 
states.  except  that  which  decided  that,  on  the  re 

turn  of  Dred  to  Missouri  with  his  master,  any  effect 
upon  his  slavery,  which  the  taking  of  him  into  Illinois 
and  the  Louisiana  territory  above  the  latitude  thirty-six 
degrees  and  thirty  minutes  might  have  had,  disappeared. 
This  seemed  to  Justice  Nelson  sufficient  to  the  decision 
of  the  case,  and  he  was  unwilling  to  go  farther,  but 
some  of  his  brethren,  especially  Justice  Wayne,  thought 
that  the  entire  record  of  the  case  in  the  Circuit  Court 
was  brought  up  for  examination  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  that  the  Supreme  Court  ought  to  decide  every  point 
contained  in  the  record.  Justice  Nelson  had  been,  at 
first,  selected  by  his  colleagues  to  write  the  opinion,  and 
it  is  thought  that  this  attitude  of  his  was  what  moved 
the  Chief  Justice  to  write  the  opinion  himself. 


THE  DRED   SCOTT   CASE  453 

Justice  Catron  also  thought  that  there  was  nothing 
before  the  Supreme  Court  but  the  question  whether, 
after  the  return  of  the  Scotts  to  Missouri,  their  tem 
porary  sojourn  on  free  territory  could  be  held  to  have 
worked  their  emancipation.  Justice  Catron  presided  at 
the  trial  in  the  Circuit  Court  and  ruled,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  favor  of  Dred  Scott  on  the  point  of  his  having  a 
standing  in  the  United  States  Courts,  and  the  Justice 
thought  that  Scott  could  not  bring  up  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  on  a  writ  of  error,  a  point  decided  in  his  favor  in 
the  court  below. 

The  Chief  Justice,  Mr.  Taney,  held  that  there  were 
two  leading  questions  presented  by  the  record  from  the 
Circuit  Court.  The  first  was  the  question  whether 
the  Circuit  Court  had  jurisdiction  over  the  case,  and  the 
second  was  whether  the  judgment  it  gave  was  correct 
or  erroneous. 

The  Chief  Justice  was  right  in  holding  that  the  writ 
of  error  brought  up  the  entire  record  for  examination 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  but  it  was  not  necessary  that  the 
Supreme  Court  should  include  every  point  of  the  record 
in  its  decision.  And  he  was  certainly  wrong  when  he 
extended,  as  is  now  generally  conceded  he  did,  the  opin 
ion  of  the  court  beyond  the  points  in  the  record  of  the 
case  in  the  Circuit  Court.  The  form  of  the  judgment 
pronounced  by  the  Chief  Justice  as  the  opinion  of  the 
Court,  that  is,  of  the  majority  of  the  Justices,  was  that 
the  Circuit  Court  did  not  have  jurisdiction  of  the  case, 
since  the  Scotts  were  not  citizens  of  Missouri,  in  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  for  the  defend 
ant  must,  therefore,  be  set  aside,  and  a  mandate  be 
issued,  directing  the  suit  to  be  dismissed  by  the  Circuit 
Court  for  want  of  jurisdiction.  The  Chief  Justice 
undertook  to  sustain  his  opinion  by  a  long  argument, 


454  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

the  principal  propositions  of  which  were,  that  negroes 
descended  from  negro  slaves  held  in  this  country  were 
not  citizens  in  any  of  the  "  States"  of  the  Union  at  the 
time  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  1787  ;  that 
by  that  Constitution  the  "  States"  transferred  all  power 
to  make  new  classes  of  persons  citizens  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  and  limited  the  power  of  Congress  in 
this  respect  to  the  naturalization  of  persons  born  outside 
of  the  dominion  of  the  United  States ;  and  that,  conse 
quently,  negroes  born  of  negro  slave  parents  in  the 
United  States  were  not  only  not  citizens  of  any  of  the 
"States"  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  1787,  but  could  not  be  made  such,  either  by  the 
"  States  "  or  by  Congress,  subsequent  to  the  adoption  of 
that  Constitution. 

In  his  powerful  dissenting  opinion,  Mr.  Justice  Curtis 
demolished  this  argument  completely,  by  simply  show- 
The  dissent-  ^ng  from  the  statute  books  and  the  judicial 
M?.funsuc°l  Decisions  of  several  of  the  "  States  "  that,  at 
Curtis.  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitu 

tion  of  1787,  negroes  descended  from  Africans,  who  had 
been  held  as  slaves  in  the  country,  were  citizens,  even 
to  the  point  of  possessing  the  suffrage,  in  several  of  the 
"States"  of  the  Union.  The  great  argument  of  the 
Chief  Justice  turned  out  to  be  only  a  political  essay, 
without  fact,  law,  or  jurisprudence  to  sustain  it.  Mr. 
Justice  Curtis,  therefore,  held  that,  as  nothing  against 
Dred  Scott's  citizenship  had  been  alleged  by  the  defend 
ant  in  the  Circuit  Court,  except  that  he  was  a  negro, 
and  descended  from  negroes  who  had  been  held  as  slaves 
in  this  country,  the  jurisdiction  assumed  by  the  Circuit 
Court  ought  to  be  sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

But  if  the  opinion  of  the  Court  should  be  accepted  as 
correct  upon  this  point,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the 
opinion  should  not  have  ended  with  the  decision  upon 


THE  DEED   SCOTT   CASE  455 

this  point.  Nothing  further  was  necessary  in  the  deter 
mination  of  the  case.  And  it  is  certainly  most  difficult 
to  see  what  connection  the  Act  of  1830.  pro- 

.    .  ..  Criticism  of 

hibitmg  slavery  in  the  Louisiana  territory,  the  court's 
north  of  the  latitude  thirty-six  degrees  and 
thirty  minutes,  had  with  the  case.     No  decision  upon 
that  point  was  rendered  by  the  Circuit   Court,  whose 
record  the  Supreme  Court  was  reviewing. 

If  the  Supreme  Court  had  confirmed  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Circuit  Court  in  the  case,  and  had  then  ruled  that 
the  Circuit  Court  was  in  error  in  holding  that  slavery 
reattached  to  the  Scotts  by  Missouri  law,  upon  their  re 
turn  to  Missouri,  even  if  they  had  been  made  free  by 
their  temporary  sojourn  upon  free  soil,  probably  the 
Supreme  Court  should  have  decided  the  question  as  to 
what  effect  that  sojourn  may  have  had,  and,  in  this  way, 
included  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
slavery  prohibition  clause  in  the  Act  of  1820.  But  the 
majority  of  the  Supreme  Court  approved  the  view  of 
the  Circuit  Court  upon  this  point. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  majority  of  the  Justices 
thought  that  a  declaration  from  the  Supreme  Court  in 
regard  to  the  mooted  question  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  would  aid  in  bringing  quiet  to  the  country,  and 
that  they  had  persuaded  themselves  that  it  was  neces 
sary  to  the  decision  of  the  point  in  issue.  But  they  were 
certainly  in  error,  as  to  the  first  consideration,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  see  that  they  were  not  as  to  the  second. 

The  Chief  Justice  advanced  to  his  conclusion  in  this 
part  of  the  opinion  through  a  most  labored  argument. 
He  started  with  the  dictum  that  there  was  The  obiter 
no  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  gave  dictum- 
Congress  any  power  over  territory  acquired  subsequent 
ly  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  interpreting  the 
provision  which  vests  in  Congress  "  the  power  to  make 


456  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

all  needful  rules  and  regulations  concerning  the  territory 
and  other  property  of  the  United  States/*  as  applying 
only  to  territory  held  by  the  United  States  at  the  time 
of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  He  then  founded 
the  power  to  govern  the  territory  subsequently  acquired 
upon  the  right  to  acquire  territory ;  and  declared  that 
in  governing  such  territory,  or  providing  for  its  govern 
ment,  Congress  was  limited  by  all  those  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  which  protect  private  rights  against  gov 
ernmental  power.  He  claimed,  finally,  that  that  one  of 
these  provisions  which  ordains  that  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process 
of  law  protected  property  in  slaves,  taken  into  the  Ter 
ritories  by  their  masters,  against  both  the  power  of  Con 
gress  and  of  the  agents  of  Congress  in  the  Territories, 
the  Territorial  governments,  to  free  them.  The  con 
clusion  from  this  reasoning  was  that  anybody  could  take 
slaves  into  a  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and  hold 
them  there  in  slavery,  no  matter  what  might  be  the  dis 
position  of  Congress  or  of  the  Territorial  government  in 
regard  to  the  subject,  and  that  the  question  whether 
slavery  was  to  be  permanently  established  in  a  Territory 
or  not  could  not  be  determined  until  the  Territory 
should  become  a  "  State,"  and  then  only  by  an  act  of 
the  "  State." 

This  was  the  point  which  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act 
had  not  covered,  and  which  the  President  said,  in  his 
The  chief  inaugural  address,  would  be  decided  in  the 
Justice   and  forthcoming  opinion  on  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
The   opinion  was   pronounced  several   days 
after  the  inaugural,  and  it  was  later   charged  by  Mr. 
Seward,  and    intimated  by  Mr.  Lincoln,   and  believed 
by  a  large  number   of   persons,  that    the   Chief   Jus 
tice  imparted  the  opinion  of  the  Court  to  the  Presi 
dent  before  it  was  pronounced.     But  this  point,  though 


THE   DRED    SCOTT   CASE  457 

not  necessarily  involved  in  the  case,  had  been  argued  by 
counsel,  and  the  newspapers  had  declared  that  it  would 
be  decided,  and  both  Mr.  Buchanan    and  Mr.   Taney 
were  men  of  the  highest  personal  and  official  integrity, 
and  possessed    the  most  delicate  sense  of  the  require 
ments  and  proprieties  of  the  great  stations  which  they', 
occupied.     It  is  almost  certain  that  the  charge  was  an  1  |s| 
unfounded  suspicion.     The  prevalence  of  the  suspicion 
was,  however,  an  ominous  sign  of  the  danger  impend 
ing  over  the  land. 

Justice  Curtis  found  no  more  difficulty  in  controvert 
ing  these  propositions  than  those  upon  the  first  point 
treated  in  the  opinion  of  the  Chief  Justice. 
He  first  referred  to  the  undoubted  facts  that  tie's  dissent 
not  all  the  territory  claimed  by  the  several  c 
"States  "had  been  ceded  to  the  United  States  at  the 
time  that  the  Constitution  of  1787  was  adopted,  but 
that  it  was  expected  that  what  remained  would  soon  be 
so  ceded,  and  that  therefore  the  clause  vesting  in  Con 
gress  "  the  power  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regula 
tions  concerning  the  territory  of  the  United  States" 
must  have  been  framed  with  these  future  acquisitions 
in  view,  and  intended  to  apply  to  them  also.  He  then 
demanded  to  know  why,  if  the  Court  could  derive  the 
power  of  Congress  to  govern  territory  acquired  from  for 
eign  states  from  a  right  which  is  not  expressed  in  the 
Constitution,  but  is  itself  implied,  the  right  to  acquire, 
should  it  hesitate  to  derive  it  from  a  power  in  respect  to 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  which  is  expressed 
in  the  Constitution.  He  contended  that  until  Congress 
or  the  Territorial  legislature  had  legalized  slavery  in 
a  Territory,  no  one  could  be  said  to  be  deprived  of  his 
property  in  slaves  in  the  given  Territory,  either  by  a 
Congressional  act  forbidding  the  existence  of  such  prop 
erty,  or  by  the  failure  of  Congress  or  the  Territorial 


458  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

legislature  to  enact  laws  for  the  security  of  such  prop 
erty.  He  repudiated  the  idea  that  a  holder  of  slaves 
could  take  the  law  of  the  place  from  which  he  emigrated, 
securing  such  property,  into  a  Territory  with  him  as  a 
monstrosity  in  jurisprudence,  since  it  would  introduce 
into  a  given  Territory  as  many  slave  codes  as  there  were 
slaveholding  Commonwealths  represented  therein  by 
their  slaveholding  emigrants,  and  he  indicated,  finally, 
that  the  reasoning  of  the  Court  must  reach  ultimately 
the  proposition  that  Congress  was  required  by  the  Con 
stitution  to  establish  slavery  in  every  Territory  of  the 
Union,  and  consequently  to  make  every  new  "State"  a 
slaveholding  "  State." 

The  slaveholders  and  the  Douglas  Democrats  of  the 
North  were  in  high  glee  over  the  decision,  and  hardly 

The  print-  stopped  to  read  the  powerful  dissenting  opin- 
ion  which  had  shattered  it  to  atoms.  They 
caused  thousands  upon  thousands  of  copies 
opinion.  of  fas  decision  to  be  printed  and  distributed 
among  the  masses  of  the  people.  The  Free-soilers  did 
the  same  thing  with  the  opinion  of  Justice  Curtis.  It 
was  not  many  weeks  before  it  became  entirely  manifest 
that  the  cause  of  slavery  had  lost  immensely  by  the  de 
cision,  and  the  cause  of  free-soilism  had  gained  in  the 
same  degree.  Justice  Curtis  had  demonstrated  that  the 
decision  had  cast  the  responsibility  for  the  further  ex 
tension  of  slavery  upon  the  nation,  and  the  nation  now 

The  doctrine  ^egan  to  snow  its  resolution  to  meet  its  re- 
of popular  sponsibility  by  acquitting  itself  of  any  par- 
sovereignty  in     r .       .       .     f ,  .  •       -i          i 
the  Territories   ticipation  in  this  great  wronp;    in  the  onlv 

overthrown  by  ,    ,,    .      .,     ,,      ,    .    °,  ,.     * 

the  opinion  of  manner  now  left  to  it,  that  is,  by  preventing 
it.  The  nation  could  no  longer  deceive  itself 
with  the  idea  that  it  could  stand  neutral.  The  Court 
had  actually  swept  away  the  dogma  of  "  popular  sover 
eignty"  in  the  Territories.  The  nation  must  now 


THE  DRED   SCOTT   OASE  459 

neither  prohibit,  nor  allow  the  Territorial  governments 
to  prohibit,  slavery  within  the  Territories,  as  the  de 
cision  would  have  it,  or  the  nation  must  itself  prohibit 
it,  as  the  dissenting  opinion  would  have  it.  When  these 
alternatives  were  distinctly  recognized  as  necessary  and 
exhaustive,  it  did  not  take  the  nation  long  to  decide 
which  course  it  must  pursue. 


CHAPTER    XXII. 

THE   STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS  CONCLUDED 

The  Lecompton  Convention  Ordered — Robert  J.  Walker  and  F.  P. 
Stanton — Stanton  and  the  "  Free-state  "  Men — Walker's  Ad 
dress — The  "  Free-state"  Legislature  and  Mass-meeting — The 
Plan  to  Capture  the  Territorial  Legislature  by  the  "  Free- 
state  "  Men— The  "  Free-state  "  Men  in  Majority  in  the  Terri 
torial  Legislature — The  Lecompton  Convention — The  Lecomp 
ton  Constitution — Only  the  Slavery  Article  to  be  Submitted 
Fully  to  the  People — Protest  of  the  "  Free  state  "  Men— The 
Extra  Session  of  the  New  Territorial  Legislature — Stanton  Re 
moved — Lecompton  Constitution  With  Slavery  Adopted — The 
"Free  state"  Men  Capture  the  Lecompton  Government  and 
Reject  the  Lecompton  Constitution— Denver  Advises  the  Pres 
ident  Against  the  Admission  of  Kansas  Under  the  Lecompton 
Instrument — The  President's  Message  of  February  2nd  (1858) — 
The  Passage  of  the  Lecompton  Bill  by  the  Senate — The  Rejec 
tion  of  the  Bill  by  the  House— The  English  Bill— The  Rejec 
tion  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  by  the  People  of  Kansas — • 
A  Fourth  Government  for  Kansas — The  Struggle  for  Kansas 
Closed — Dr.  Robinson — The  General  Government — Mr.  Jeffer 
son  Davis  —  The  Beginning  of  Error  and  Wrong  —  Brown's 
Atrocities — The  Forerunners  of  War. 

ACCORDING  to  the  dictum  of  the  Court  in  the  great 
case  reviewed  in  the  preceding  chapter,  slave  property 
was  lawful  in  Kansas  during  the  Territorial  period,  and 
could  be  first  dealt  with  by  the  constitutional  conven 
tion,  which  should  prepare  the  organic  law  for  Kansas 
as  a  Commonwealth  of  the  Union. 


THE  STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS    CONCLUDED      461, 

Already  before  the  promulgation  of  the  decision,  the 
Territorial  legislature  had  provided  for  the  holding  of  the 
constitutional  convention  at  Lecompton,  and  TheLecom  . 
for  the  election  of  the  delegates  thereto.  This  ton  conv  e  n  - 

.     .     -,/,-r  -.KIT       i  r>  e-  iv        ti°n  ordered. 

election  was  appointed  for  June  loth,  1857. 

It  was  certain  that  the  "  Free-State"  men  now  out 
numbered  the  pro-slavery  men,  and  that  upon  a  fair 
census,  registration,  and  distribution  of  seats,  and  with 
a  fair  election  and  count,  they  would  be  able  to  secure 
the  majority  in  the  convention.  But  could  they  consist 
ently  participate  in  an  election  ordered  by,  and  under 
the  control  of,  the  Territorial  government  ?  Many  of 
them  felt  that  they  could  not.  Others,  however,  were 
inclined  to  do  so,  if  the  regulations  were  impartial. 
They  examined  the  provisions  made  by  the  Territorial 
legislature  for  the  machinery  of  the  registration  and 
the  election,  and  found  that  they  were  grossly  favorable 
to  the  pro-slavery  party.  They  also  found  that  the  leg 
islature  had  made  no  provision  for  submitting  the  con 
stitution  which  might  be  framed  to  the  vote  of  the 
people. 

While  the  "  Free-state"  men  were  deliberating  upon 
this  matter,  the  new  Territorial  officials  appointed  by 
the  new  President  appeared.  President 
Buchanan  had  selected  Robert  J.  Walker,  Walker,  and 
of  Mississippi,  to  be  Governor,  and  F.  P. 
Stanton,  of  Tennessee,  to  be  Secretary,  of  the  Territory. 
Both  of  these  men  were  capable,  honest,  and  resolute. 
Walker  was  a  shrewd  politician,  indeed,  but  he  was 
fair-minded  and  faithful  to  his  plighted  word.  Stanton 
arrived  on  the  scene  about  the  middle  of  April.  Walker 
came  a  month  later.  Stanton,  therefore,  was  Acting 
Governor  during  the  first  month  of  his  residence  in  the 
Territory. 

Stanton  went  to  Lawrence,  on  the  24th,  and  urged  the 


462  THE   MIDDLE   PEKIOD 

"  Free-state  "  men  to  take  part  in  the  approaching  elec 
tion.     He  had,  however,  already  apportioned  the  repre 
sentation  in  the  convention  on  the  basis  of  the 

Stanton  and          ...  T  .,  ,1,1 

the  -Free-  existing  census.  It  was  evident  that  he  was 
unaware  that  this  was  unjust  to  the  "  Free- 
state  "men.  Seeing  this,  the  "  Free-state  "  men  made 
a  counter  proposition  for  a  new  census  and  apportion 
ment,  and  for  an  impartial  control  of  the  elections. 
Stanton  did  not  think  he  had  the  power  to  conclude  an 
agreement  with  them  on  this  basis,  and  the  negotiations 
fell  through. 

The  new  Governor  now  arrived,  and  bent  all  his  ener 
gies  to  induce  the  "Free-state"  men  to  participate  in 

walker's  ^ne  election.  He  issued  an  address,  in  which 
address.  ^e  soiemniy  declared  that  he  would  secure 
honest  elections  and  returns,  and  pledged  himself  that 
the  constitution,  which  the  convention  might  form, 
should  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  re 
jection.  He  also  threatened  that  he  would  enforce  the 
laws  of  the  Territory.  His  idea  seems  to  have  been  to 
create  an  Administration  party,  which  would  win  a  ma 
jority  of  the  seats  in  the  convention  and  make  Kansas 
a  Democratic  non-slaveholding  Commonwealth.  The 
pro-slavery  men  discovered  the  plan  at  once,  and  ac 
cused  the  Governor  of  leaning  toward  the  "Free-state" 
party. 

The  "  Free-state  "  men  were  not  yet,  however,  ready 
to  trust  the  Governor.     They  thought  it  wisest  to  main- 

The  «•  Free-  tain  their  own  organization,  and  make  the 
ur^d^mafs  Governor  feel  their  power.  On  June  9th,  the 
meeting.  «  Free-state  "  legislature  assembled,  to  pro 
vide  for  the  election  of  successors  to  the  existing  mem 
bers  and  officials.  Along  with  it  was  convoked  a  sort  of 
mass-meeting  of  citizens.  The  legislature  was  at  first 
without  a  quorum,  and  never  had  an  honest  quorum. 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS  CONCLUDED   463 

This  fact  was  sedulously  concealed  from  the  Governor, 
while  the  orators  at  the  mass-meeting  raised  enough 
dust  and  smoke  to  cover  up  the  real  condition  of  affairs. 
They  made  the  place  fairly  blue  with  their  bluster  and 
their  threats,  and  the  little  Governor  was  greatly  im 
pressed  by  the  apparent  seriousness  of  the  situation. 

By  this  time,  however,  the  "Free-state"  men  had 
become  considerably  discouraged  in  regard  to  the  admis 
sion  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  The  plan  to 
Topeka  constitution.  The  Senate  had  given  T^nufria? 
the  application  the  cold  shoulder,  and  had,  {efe6lat^r£rebey. 
apparently,  laid  it  aside  permanently.  The  state  "men. 
prevarications  of  Lane  were  said  to  have  produced  this 
result.  As  matters  now  stood,  Kobinson  and  the  more 
conservative  men  of  the  "Free-state"  party  began  to 
consider  the  advisability  of  attempting  to  capture  the 
Territorial  legislature,  by  participating  in  the  election  of 
members,  which  was  to  take  place  in  the  following  Oc 
tober.  They  felt  certain  that  upon  a  true  census  and  a 
fair  apportionment,  and  with  an  honest  election,  they 
could  win  a  majority  of  the  seats  in  the  legislature,  and 
would  then  be  in  a  position  to  nullify  the  work  of  the 
Lecompton  convention,  which,  on  account  of  the  absten 
tion  of  the  "  Free-state  "  men  from  the  election  of  the  del 
egates,  would  be  packed  with  pro-slavery  representatives. 

The  matter  of  first  importance  was  to  obtain  a  true 
census.  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  was  at  the 
moment  in  Lawrence,  conferring  with  Eobinson  and  his 
friends  concerning  the  state  of  affairs,  and  he  strongly 
advised  these  gentlemen  to  take  a  correct  census  under 
the  auspices  of  the  "Free-state"  government,  and  to 
nominate  candidates  for  seats  in  the  Territorial  legislat 
ure,  and  elect  them.  He  felt  so  decidedly  about  the 
matter  that  he  offered  to  secure  the  funds  necessary  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  taking  the  new  census. 


464  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Robinson  and  his  friends  were  now  convinced  that  this 
was  the  wise  course,  but  they  knew  that  it  would  be  dif 
ficult  to  persuade  the  radical  elements  in  their  party  to 
go  with  them.  The  mass  meeting  at  Topeka  of  June 
9th  had  voted  to  stick  to  the  " Free-state"  government, 
and  a  convention  of  the  "Free-state"  men  had  assem 
bled  on  July  15th  to  provide  for  its  continuance.  This 
convention,  after  nominating  candidates  for  the  legisla 
tive  seats  and  for  the  offices,  and  resolving  to  adhere  to 
the  "  Free-state  "  government,  recommended  the  peo 
ple  to  assemble  in  mass  convention,  at  Grasshopper  Falls, 
on  the  26th  of  the  following  August,  to  take  action  in 
regard  to  the  participation  of  the  "  Free-state  "  men  in 
the  October  election  of  members  of  the  Territorial  legis 
lature,  since  Governor  Walker  had  declared  that  this 
election  would  be  held  under  the  laws  of  Congress,  and 
not  under  the  acts  of  the  Territorial  legislature,  and  had 
pledged  himself  to  secure  an  honest  election.  It  was 
evident  from  this  that  the  conservative  element  in  the 
"  Free-state  "  party  had  won  the  day. 

Before  the  day  appointed  for  the  Grasshopper  Falls 
convention  had  arrived,  the  new  census  had  been  com 
pleted  under  the  direction  of  the  "  Free-state"  govern 
ment,  and  it  was  morally  certain  that  the  "  Free-state  " 
men  could  elect  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  new 
Territorial  legislature.  When  the  convention  assembled, 
it  therefore  resolved,  by  a  large  majority,  that  the  "Free- 
state  "  men  should  participate  in  the  October  election, 
warning  the  people,  however,  of  the  seriousness  of  the 
undertaking,  and  cautioning  them  against  over-confi 
dence  in  success. 

The  Lecompton  convention  assembled  on  the  seventh 
day  of  September,  and,  after  organizing,  adjourned  to 
October  19th,  as  if  to  await  the  result  of  the  election  of 
the  members  of  the  Territorial  legislature. 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR   KANSAS   CONCLUDED      465 

This  election  came  off  on  October  5th.  The  Govern 
or  remained  true  to  his  pledge  of  protecting  the  ballot- 
box.  The  presence  of  United  States  soldiers  The  ,4Free 
discouraged  any  movements  from  Missouri,  state"  men  in 
and  peace  reigned  at  the  polls.  The  returns  SeTerritoriai 
from  the  counties  of  McGee  and  Johnson  leglsl£ 
were,  however,  so  manipulated  by  the  pro-slavery  elec 
tion  officers  as  to  give  the  majority  of  the  seats  in  the 
legislature  to  the  pro-slavery  party.  These  returns,  as 
well  as  those  from  the  other  counties,  were,  however,  to 
be  canvassed  finally  by  the  Governor  and  Secretary. 
The  "  Free-state "  men  now  demanded  of  them  the 
fulfilment  of  their  pledge  of  pure  elections.  The 
"Free-state"  men  had  their  newly  taken  census,  and 
they  convinced  the  Governor  and  Secretary  that  about 
ten  times  as  many  votes  had  been  returned  from  these 
localities  as  there  were  residents  in  them.  Walker  and 
Stanton  threw  out  the  fraudulent  returns,  and  gave, 
thus,  the  Territorial  legislature  to  the  " Free-state" 
men. 

Two  days  before  the  Governor  announced  his  intention 
of  purging  the  returns  of  the  frauds  committed  by  the 
pro-slavery  men  in  regard  to  them,  and  while 
the  excitement  about  them  was  intense,  it  compton  con- 
was  suddenly  discovered  by  the  conservative 
"  Free-state "  men  that  Lane  was  working  up  a  con 
spiracy  for  using  violence  against  the  members  of  the 
Lecompton  convention.  He,  as  commander-in-chief, 
had  ordered  the  "Free-state"  forces  to  assemble  in 
Lawrence  on  October  19th  for  that  purpose.  The  con 
servative  men  at  once  set  themselves  against  this  move 
ment,  and  after  a  serious  struggle  happily  won  the  day. 
They  appointed  a  mass-meeting  of  the  party  at  Lecomp 
ton  for  the  following  week,  as  much  to  protect  the  mem 
bers  of  the  convention  against  any  sudden  attack  by 
30 


466  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

Lane  and  his  reckless  adherents  as  to  watch  their  con 
stitution-framing  work.  Before  the  meeting  took  place 
the  Governor  had  announced  the  rejection  of  the  fraud 
ulent  returns,  and  had  thus  deprived  the  "  Free-state  " 
men  of  all  excuse  for  violence.  Some  boisterous  speeches 
were,  nevertheless,  indulged  in  at  the  meeting,  but  the 
convention  was  allowed  to  complete  its  work  in  peace. 

The  convention  framed  an  instrument  after  the  Mis 
souri  model,  and  incorporated  in  it  an  article  guarantee- 
L      *n&  ^ie  ProPertj  in  slaves  already  within  the 
compton  con-   Territory.     The  convention  then  framed  an 

etitution.  ...  ...  ,   . 

independent  provision  in  regard  to  slavery  as 
a  permanent  institution  of  the  new  Commonwealth. 
This  provision  alone  was  to  be  fully  submitted  to  the 
vote  of  the  people.  The  people  must  take  the  Lecomp- 
Oni  the  *on  constitution  with  slavery  as  a  permanent 
Slavery  arti-  institution,  or  the  Lecompton  constitution 

cle  to  be  sub-        . , . 

mitted  fully  to  without  slavery  as  a  permanent  institution 
but  containing  a  guarantee  of  the  slave 
property  already  in  the  Territory.  The  day  appointed 
by  the  convention  for  the  voters  to  signify  their  ap 
proval  or  disapproval  of  the  provision  in  regard  to 
slavery  as  a  permanent  institution  was  December  21st, 
1857,  and  the  day  designated  for  the  election  of  mem 
bers  and  officers  under  the  new  constitution  was  Janu 
ary  4th  following. 

The  "  Free-state"  men  regarded  this  submission  of  only 
a  single  article  of  the  constitution  to  popular  vote  as  a 
fraud  upon  the  principle  of  "popular  sover- 
the  -Free-  eignty,"  and  demanded  of  Stanton,  who  was 
then   discharging  the  Governor's  duties,  in 
the  temporary  absence  of  the  latter,  that  the  Governor's 
pledge  as  to  the  full  submission  of  the  proposed  consti 
tution  to  the  people  at  the  polls  should  be  redeemed. 
Stanton  bravely  resolved  to  keep  the  Governor's  word  of 


THE   STRUGGLE  FOR   KANSAS   CONCLUDED      467 

honor,  although  he  believed  it  would  cost  him  his  posi 
tion. 

What  the  "Free-state"  men  asked  of  him  was  to  con 
vene  at  once  the  new  Territorial  legislature,  in  which  the 
"Free-state"  men  now  had  a  majority  of  The  extra 
the  seats,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  it  the  op-  £8w  S&StoS 
portunity  to  order  the  full  submission  of  the  ai  legislature. 
Lecompton  constitution  to  the  suffrages  of  the  people. 
Stanton  yielded  to  their  request,  and  called  the  legisla 
ture  to  meet  at  Lecompton  on  December  7th.  This 
body  at  once  resolved  to  submit  the  proposed  constitu 
tion  fully  and  in  all  its  parts  to  the  people,  to  be  adopted 
or  rejected  by  them  at  their  pleasure,  and  appointed  the 
4th  day  of  the  following  January  as  the  time  for  taking 
the  vote. 

Stanton  was  immediately  removed  from  office  by  the 
Administration,  and  General  John  W.  Den-      stanton  re- 
ver,  of  Virginia,  at  the  moment  Indian  Com-  moved- 
missioner,  was  assigned  to  the  duties  of  Acting  Governor 
in  the  Territory. 

The  "  Free-state "  men  resolved  to  take  no  part  in 
voting  upon  the  slavery  article  of  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  since  they  must  take  this  constitution  either 
with  or  without  slavery  as  a  permanent  institution,  and 
could  not  vote  against  the  constitution  as  a  whole. 
Consequently  the  Lecompton  constitution  with  slavery 
as  a  permanent  institution  was,  so  far  as  the  returns  of 
the  voting  on  December  21st  were  concerned, 
adopted.  According  to  these  returns,  six 
thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-six  votes  ad°Pted- 
were  cast  for  it.  Of  these,  nearly  three  thousand  were 
afterward  shown  to  be  fraudulent.  Between  five  and 
six  hundred  votes  were  cast  for  this  constitution  with 
out  slavery  as  a  permanent  institution.  None  were 
counted  against  it  in  toto.  That  is  to  say,  out  of  a  vot- 


468  THE   MIDDLE   PERIOD 

ing  population  of  about  fifteen  thousand,  less  than  four 
thousand  were  in  favor  of  this  constitution  in  either  form. 

The  more  prudent  of  the  "  Free-state  "  men  now 
thought,  however,  that  it  would  be  wise  to  participate 
in  the  election  of  members  and  officers  of  the  Lecompton 
"  State  "  government  on  the  day  fixed  by  the  Lecomp 
ton  constitution,  January  4th,  1858.  They  were  to  vote 
fully  at  that  time,  as  we  have  seen,  upon  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  by  order  of  the  Territorial  legislature,  now 
in  their  hands.  They  felt  certain  of  defeating  the  con 
stitution,  and  they  knew  that  they  could  win  in  the 
election  of  the  officers  and  members.  They  nominated 
a  ticket  with  G.  W.  Smith  at  its  head,  as  their  candidate 
for  Governor. 

On  January  4th,  more  than  ten  thousand  votes  were 
cast  against  the  Lecompton  constitution  en- 

T'lip  *4  "FVpp- 

state"    men  tire,  and  only  about  one  hundred  and  fifty 
votes  were  cast  in  its  favor.     The   "  Free- 


fnderej?ctethe  state"  men  also  elected  their  candidates  for 
constitution  n  ^e  on^ces  an(^  sea^s  in  *ne  government  crea 

ted  by  the  Lecompton  constitution. 
The  "Free-state"  men  now  had  possession  of  the 
Topeka  "Free-state"  government,  of  the  Territorial 
legislature,  and  of  the  Lecompton  "  State  "  government, 
and  had  rejected  the  Lecompton  constitution  by  an  un 
doubted  majority  of  the  suffrages  of  the  citizens  of 
Kansas. 

As  yet  the  Lecompton  constitution  had  not  been  pre 
sented  by  the   President   to   Congress,  and 
Acting   Governor  Denver  hastened  to  give 
him  a  truthful  statement  of  the  condition  of 
derKatnh8e8i£  affairs  in  the  Territory,  and  to  urge  him  not 
B°rumeX  in~  ^°  recommend  to  Congress  the  admission  of 
Kansas  under  this  constitution,  but  to  sug 
gest   to   that  body  the  passage  simply  of  an  enabling 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOB  KANSAS  CONCLUDED  469 

act,  under  which  the  people  of  Kansas  might  begin 
again  the  work  of  forming  a  Commonwealth  constitu 
tion. 

But  the  President  did  not  heed  this  wise  warning. 
On  February  2nd,  1858,  he  sent  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  with  the  provision  making  slavery  The  Preei- 
a  permanent  institution  in  Kansas,  to  Con-  gageofSbru- 
gress,  and  recommended  the  admission  of  the  ary2nd  (1858)> 
distracted  Territory  into  the  Union,  as  a  "  State/' 
under  it.  His  line  of  argument  was  that  every  step  in 
the  procedure  of  framing  and  adopting  this  constitution 
had  been  regularly  and  legally  taken,  and  that  all  the 
voters  could  have  participated  in  the  work  if  they  had 
chosen  to  do  so.  He  claimed  that  the  act  of  the  Terri 
torial  legislature,  after  it  came  under  the  control  of 
the  "  Free-state"  men,  in  ordering  another  vote,  and 
a  different  sort  of  vote,  upon  the  constitution,  than 
and  from  that  appointed  and  required  by  the  conven 
tion,  was  irregular ;  and  he  undertook  to  comfort 
the  ' '  Free-state  "  men  with  the  suggestion  that,  Kan 
sas  once  admitted,  they  could  change  its  constitu 
tion  to  suit  themselves,  if  they  were  really  in  major- 
ity. 

The  President's  argument  carried  the  Senate  with 
him  despite  the  powerful  opposition  of  Mr.  Douglas, 
who  bravely  antagonized  the  Administration,  The  passage 
and  held  firmly  that  his  great  principle  of  ^ptnVm 
ft  popular  sovereignty  "  required  the  unre-  by  the  Senate< 
served  submission  of  every  part  of  the  constitution  to 
the  free  suffrages  of  the  people,  in  order  to  establish  its 
validity.  He  declared  that  unless  this  should  be  done 
Congress  could  not  know  whether  the  people  of  Kansas 
had  made  a  constitution  or  not,  and  that  without  that 
knowledge  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  constitu 
tion  before  the  Senate  was  tantamount  to  making  a  con- 


470  THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

stitution  for  Kansas  by  Congressional  act.  The  honest 
and  manly  stand  taken  by  Mr.  Douglas  upon  this  great 
subject  certainly  presents  him  in  the  role  of  a  patriotic 
statesman,  rather  than  in  his  usual  character  of  the 
shrewd  politician. 

The  Senate  passed  the  Lecompton  bill  on  March  23rd, 
1858,  by  a  substantial  majority,  but  the  House  prompt 
ly  rejected  it.     The  House  passed  a  meas- 

Tfa.6    T&\  6  C  - 

tionof  the  bill  ure,  instead,  for  referring  the  Lecompton 
constitution  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas, 
who  should  vote  freely  upon  it  in  all  its  parts,  and  for 
admitting  Kansas,  without  further  Congressional  action, 
under  this  constitution,  if  it  should  receive  the  popular 
ratification  ;  but  the  Senate  rejected  this  substitute  for 
its  bill. 

The  matter  was  then  sent  to  a  conference  committee 
of  the  two  Houses,     After  long  deliberation  a  measure 
The  English  was  matured   by  this  committee  which   ap- 
bm-  peared  to  deal  with   a   subsidiary   question 

only,  but  which,  by  some  sort  of  an  understanding, 
was  held  to  give  the  people  of  Kansas  the  chance 
to  reject  the  Lecompton  constitution  in  toto  at  the 
polls.  The  measure  is  known  as  the  English  bill  from 
its  projector,  Mr.  TV.  H.  English,  a  member  of  the 
conference  committee  from  the  House  of  Representa 
tives.  It  provided  for  a  reduction  of  the  land  grants 
from  twenty-three  millions  of  acres,  asked  for  by  Kan 
sas  under  the  Lecompton  constitution,  to  about  four 
millions  of  acres,  and  proposed  the  submission  of  this 
change  to  a  vote  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  If  the 
people  adopted  the  change,  they  would  be  considered 
as  having  adopted  the  Lecompton  constitution  in  toto. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  rejected  this  change,  they 
would  be  considered  as  having  rejected  this  constitution 
in  toto. 


THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  KANSAS  CONCLUDED  471 

The  English  bill  was  agreed  to  by  both  Houses  ;  and 
on  August  2nd,  1858,  the  people  of  Kansas  voted  upon 
the  measure.  They  rejected  it,  and  with  The  rejec- 
it  the  Lecompton  constitution,  by  a  vote  of  com^ton^con- 
more  than  eleven  thousand  in  a  total  vote  theUpe0o?iebof 
of  about  thirteen  thousand.  Kansas. 

In  the  meantime,  fearing  that  Congress  might  pass 
the  bill  for  admitting  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  the  Territorial  legislature,  now  in  the  hands 
of  the  "  Free-state  "  men,  passed  a  bill  ordering  a  new 
constitutional  convention.  The  bill  was  passed  within 
a  few  days  of  the  end  of  the  session,  and  Governor 
Denver,  thinking  that  Kansas  had  about  enough  gov 
ernments  already,  pocketed  the  measure. 

J  A  f  ourt  h 

The  convention  was,  however,  held,  and  a  government 
constitution  was  framed  and  submitted  to 
the  people  which  received  some  three  thousand  votes 
in  favor  of  its  adoption,  while  none  were  cast  against 
it.  Officers  were  chosen  under  it,  and  thus  a  fourth 
government  for  Kansas  was  created.  All  of  these  gov 
ernments  were  now,  however,  in  the  hands  of  the  con 
servative  men  of  the  "  Free-state  "  party. 

With  the  rejection  of  the  Lecompton  constitution  by 
the  people  of  Kansas,  on  August  2nd,  the  struggle  for 
Kansas  was  closed.     It  was  to   be  a  non- 
slaveholding  Commonwealth  and  a   Eepub-  gte  for  KAMI 
lican  Commonwealth.     The  record  of  this 
struggle  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  remarkable  chapters 
in  the  history  of  the  United  States.     There  is  much  to 
admire  in  it,  much  to  be  ashamed  of,  and  much  to  be 
repudiated  as  foul  and  devilish.     The  prudence,  mod 
eration,  tact,  and  bravery  of  Dr.  Robinson     Dr.  R0bin- 
and  his  friends  have  rarely  been  excelled  by  B0n' 
the  statesmen  and  diplomatists  of  the  New  World  or 
of  the  Old.     They  were  placed  in  a  most  trying  situation 


472  THE  MIDDLE   PERIOD 

both  by  their  foes  and  by  those  who,  professing  to  be 
their  friends,  endangered  the  cause  more  by  violent  and 
brutal  deeds  than  did  their  open  enemies.  Their  tri 
umph  over  all  these  difficulties  is  a  marvel  of  shrewd, 
honest,  and  conservative  management,  which  may  well 
serve  as  one  of  the  best  object-lessons  of  our  history  for 
succeeding  generations. 

The  attitude  of  the  general  Government  was  also  hon 
orable  and  praiseworthy.     It  did  its  best  to  hold  the 

The  general  balance  even  and  impartial  between  the  con- 
Government.  ten(jing  forces.  It  sent  out  intelligent,  hon 
est,  and  resolute  men  as  Governors  ;  and  it  used  the 
army  to  maintain  the  peace,  and  protect  person  and 
property  from  violence.  Even  President  Pierce's  Secre 
tary  of  War,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis,  who  was  considered 

Mr.  Jeffer-  the  very  high-priest  of  the  slavery  interest, 
Bon  Davis.  gent  a  miiitary  commander,  Colonel  E.  V. 
Simmer,  to  Kansas,  whom  he  knew  to  be  in  sympathy 
with  Free-soil  principles,  and  instructed  him  only  to  do 
what  was  just  between  all  parties  ;  and  when  Colonel 
Sumner,  fearing  that,  from  personal  sympathy  with  the 
cause  of  the  "Free-state "  men,  he  might  unconsciously 
act  too  favorably  toward  them,  really  went  farther  than 
his  duty  required  against  them,  in  dispersing  their  legis 
lature,  Mr.  Davis  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  United 
States  forces  ought  not  to  have  interfered  with  the  ' '  Free- 
state  "  government  until  it  had  undertaken  to  execute 
some  of  its  measures.  It  was  said  at  the  time  that  Mr. 
Davis's  quasi  disavowal  of  Colonel  Sumner's  act  was 
caused  by  its  unpopularity  throughout  the  North  ;  but 
Mr.  Davis  was  not  to  any  such  degree  sensitive  to 
Northern  opinion.  Personally  and  officially  Mr.  Davis 
was  a  remarkably  upright  man,  and  was  accustomed  to 
take  counsel  chiefly  of  his  own  judgment  and  conscience, 
and  to  disturb  himself  very  little  about  the  views  of 


THE   STRUGGLE   FOR  KANSAS   CONCLUDED      473 

others  concerning  his  duties  and  acts.  Governor  Rob 
inson  has  recently  testified  to  the  impartial  attitude  of 
the  military  power  of  the  United  States  in  Kansas,  and 
has  declared  that  "  had  it  not  been  for  the  officers  of  the 
United  States  army,  the  '  Free-state'  struggle  would 
have  ended  in  disaster  on  more  than  one  occasion." 

Error  began,  unquestionably,  with  the  repeal  of  the 
Act  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Louisiana  territory  above 
thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  The 
latitude,  and  wrong  began,  just  as  unques-  |J 
tionably,  with  the  incursion  of  the  Missouri- 
ans,  and  their  fraudulent  voting  at  the  Territorial  elec 
tion  in  March  of  1855.  A  bogus  legislature  was  thus 
thrust  upon  Kansas  Territory  at  the  outset.  It  was 
a  political  outrage  of  the  first  degree,  and  it  would  have 
justified  rebellion  against  the  execution  of  the  enact 
ments  of  this  body.  But  it  does  not  excuse,  or  even 
palliate,  the  criminal  atrocities  inaugurated  by  John 
Brown  at  Dutch  Henry's  Crossing,  and  the  Brown's 
wild  reign  of  murder  and  robbery  which  fol-  atrocities- 
lowed  in  their  train.  All  this  was  common  crime  of  the 
blackest  and  most  villainous  sort,  and  the  men  who  en 
gaged  in  it  were  cutthroats  and  highwaymen,  who  took 
advantage  of  the  confusion  in  Kansas  to  prosecute  their 
nefarious  work. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  Civil  War  began  in  Kansas, 
and  simply  spread  from  there  over  the  country.  It  is 
true  that  violence  began  there,  and  in  its  degenera 
tion  into  savagery  developed  those  devilish  dispositions 
that  carried  murder  and  robbery  into  Virginia,  and 
thereby  helped  mightily  to  create  that  intensely  hostile 
feeling  between  the  North  and  the  South  which  resulted 
in  Civil  War,  but  we  affront  good  morals  and  common 
sense  when  we  dignify  those  Kansas  atrocities  by  the 
title  of  war  ;  and  we  obliterate  moral  distinctions  when 


474  THE   MIDDLE  PERIOD 

we  attempt  to  justify  them  by  the  end  which  their  au 
thors  professed  to  have  in  view,  the  extermination  of 
African  slavery  throughout  the  country.  Such  deeds 
are  not  means  to  anything  except  the  establishment  of 
the  reign  of  hell  on  earth,  and  the  maudlin  adoration 
sometimes  accorded  their  doers  is  evidence  of  an  un 
balanced  moral  sense.  It  is  a  source  of  congratulation 
that  the  juristic  sense  of  the  last  decades  of  the  nine 
teenth  century  refuses  to  place  the  crank  who  kills  or 
robs  for  what  he  considers,  or  professes  to  consider,  the 
welfare  of  society  under  any  other  class  than  that  of 
the  most  dangerous  criminals.  It  remains  for  the  ethi 
cal  sense  of  the  twentieth  century  to  sweep  the  hero- 
worship  too  often  accorded  such  characters  out  of  the 
world's  literature. 

But  if  the  murders,  and  robberies,  and  arson  com 
mitted  in  Kansas  were  not  war,  they  were  the  forerun 
ners  of  war.     The  last  expedient  which  the 


runrfer  ^of  minds  of  men  could  invent  for  putting  the 
slavery  question  in  the  position  of  a  purely 
local  matter  had  been  tried,  and  had  utterly  and  miser 
ably  failed.  The  nation  must  now  settle  the  question, 
by  peaceable  means  if  it  could,  but  if  it  could  not,  then 
by  force.  The  record  of  its  attempts,  first  upon  the  one 
line,  and  then  upon  the  other,  will  be  the  chief  sub 
ject  of  the  next  and  last  volume  of  this  series. 


APPENDIX  I. 


THE    ELECTOEAL    VOTE    IN    DETAIL, 

1820-1856. 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  1820. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

James  Monroe,  of 
Virginia. 

John  Quincy  Adams, 
of  Massachusetts. 

Daniel  D.  Tompkins, 
of  New  York. 

Richard  Stockton,  of 
New  Jersey. 

Daniel  Rodney,  of 
Delaware. 

Richard  Rush,  of 
Pennsylvania. 

Robert  Q.  Harper,  of 
Maryland 

Alabama 

3 
9 
4 
8 
3 
3 
12 
3 
9 
11 
15 
2 
3 
7 
8 
29 
15 
8 
24 
4 
11 
7 
8 
25 

'l 

3 
9 

"s 

3 
3 
12 
3 
9 
10 
7 
2 
3 
7 
8 
29 
15 
8 
24 
4 
11 
7 
8 
25 

Connecticut 

Delaware  

•• 

4 

•• 

Georgia. 

Illinois                        

Indiana     

Kentucky 

Louisiana               .     . 

Maine      

Maryland  

8 

.  t 

•  • 

1 

Massachusetts  

Missouri  *             

New  Hampshire  

•• 

•• 

1 

1 

New  Jersey    

New  York  

North  Carolina  

Ohio       .  .               

Rhode  Island    

Tennessee 

Total  .... 

231 

1 

218 

8 

4 

1 

*  Missouri  wa«  not  formally  admitted  as  a  state  until  August,  1821 


476 


APPENDIX 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  1824. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PBESIDENT. 

Andrew  Jackson,  of 
Tennessee. 

^i 

p  ^ 

P 

William  II.  Crawford, 
of  Georgia. 

°>, 

S-2 

H 

John  C.  Calhoun,  of 
South  Carolina. 

Nathan  Sanford,  of 
New  York. 

1 

b 

g 

H 

Andrew  Jackson,  of 
Tennessee. 

Martin  Van  Buren,  of 
New  York. 

Nathaniel  Macon,  of 
North  Carolina. 

Vacancies. 

Alabama  

5 

5 

Connecticut  .  .  . 

8 
1 

'l 

"2 
9 

ii 
'3 

'i 
'3 

5 

7 
5 
9 
10 
15 
3 

"l 

•• 

'2 

8 

*9 

.  . 

.  . 

Georgia  

2 
5 

Illinois  

Indiana    

Kentucky  

7 

•• 

Louisiana 

3 

2 

9 
3 
15 

8 
26 

'i 

-• 

•• 

•• 

.. 

Maine  

Maryland  .  . 

7 
'3 

8 
1 
15 

•• 

1 

•• 

•• 

•• 

Massachusetts  . 
Mississippi  .... 
Missouri  
New  Hampshire 
New  Jersey..  .  . 
New  York.... 
North  Carolina. 
Ohio   

•• 

3 
1 

•• 

•• 

•• 

'5 

'4 
ie 

8 
29 
15 

28 
3 
11 
11 

7 

7 

•• 

•• 

•• 

•• 

•• 

16 

•• 

•• 

•• 

•• 

•• 

Pennsylvania  .  . 
Rhode  Island  .  . 
South  Carolina. 
Tennessee  
Vermont 

28 

11 
11 

*4 

"l 

24 

41 

•• 

1 

24 
24 

1 

Total  

99* 

84 

37 

182 

30 

2 

13 

9 

«  Since  no  President  was  elected,  the  House  of  Representatives  proceeded  to 
elect  one,  and  John  Quincy  Adams  was  chosen  on  the  first  ballot,  the  vote  stand 
ing  Adams,  13  States ;  Jackson,  7  States  ;  Crawford,  4  States. 


APPENDIX 


477 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  1828. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

Andrew  Jackson,  of 
Tennessee. 

!| 

8 

P\ 

John  C.  Calhoun,  of 
South  Carolina. 

Richard  Rush,  of 
Pennsylvania. 

William  Smith,  of 
South  Carolina. 

5 

'& 

3 

5 

*2 
8 

5 
14 
5 
1 
5 

'3 
3 

20 
15 
16 

28 

ii 
11 

24 

'a 

3 

's 

6 
15 

'i 

8 
16 

'i 
"i 

"l 

9 
3 
5 
14 
5 

1 
5 

8 
6 
15 

'a 

8 
16 

'i 
"l 

3 
3 

New  York                     

20 
15 
16 

28 

Ohio          

Rhode  Island  

South  Carolina  

11 
11 

24 

Total  

178 

83 

171 

83 

7 

478 


APPENDIX 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN   1832. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

Andrew  Jackson, 
of  Tennessee. 

Henry  Clay,  of 
Kentucky. 

John  Floyd,  of 
Virginia. 

William  Wirt,  of 
Maryland. 

> 

Martin  Van  Buren, 
-4  of  New  York 

*S 

it 
H 

02  a 
sg 

Is 

William  Wilkins, 
of  Pennsylvania. 

Henr}'"  Lee,  of 
Massachusetts. 

Amos  Ellmaker, 
of  Pennsylvania. 

Alabama..         .  . 

7 

Connecticut  .... 
Delaware. 

8 
3 

•• 

•• 

'  ' 

11 
5 
9 

*5 

10 
3 

*4 

8 
3 

is 
'5 

14 

.. 

•• 

11 
5 

Illinois    .. 

Indiana 

9 

15 

5 
14 

•• 

•• 

'2 

Kentucky  .  . 

Louisiana  .  . 

5 
10 
3 

4 

Maine             .... 

Maryland  
Massachusetts  .  .  . 
Mississippi  

Missouri        .... 

4 
7 
8 
42 
15 
21 
30 

4 

New  Hampshire. 
New  Jersey  

7 

•• 

•• 

•• 

8 
42 
15 
21 

•• 

30 

ii 

*7 

New  York  
North  Carolina  .  . 
Ohio. 

Pennsylvania  .  .  . 

4 

4 
49 

South  Carolina.  . 

15 

11 

'7 

-• 

15 
23 

Vermont.. 

Virginia  

23 

.. 

Total 

219 

49 

11 

7 

2 

189 

30 

11 

7 

APPENDIX 

ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN   1836. 


479 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

Martin  Van  Buren,  of 
New  York. 

William  Henry  Harrison, 
of  Ohio. 

o 
.-§» 

& 

®« 

«  "S 

II 
I1 

Willie  P.  Mangum,  of 
North  Carolina. 

Richard  M.  Johnson,  of 
Kentucky. 

•s 
&a 

IB 

jl 

£ 

John  Tyler,  of  Virginia. 

William  Smith,  of 
South  Carolina. 

7 
3 
8 

7 
3 

8 

'5 

'5 

10 

3 

4 
4 

'3 
'9 

15 

ii 

ii 

io 

•• 

'3 

ii 

14 

•• 

Connecticut  

5 

'9 
15 

io 

Indiana  ..                  ... 

Kentucky  

Louisiana  

5 

10 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts  

Michigan* 

3 
4 

4 

7 

Mississippi   

Missouri                   ... 

New  Hampshire.. 

7 

New  Jersey  .         .... 

8 
2l 

•  • 

•• 

•• 

42 
15 

30 

4 

8 
2i 

•  • 

•• 

New  York  
North  Carolina  
Ohio  

42 
15 

Pennsylvania  
Rhode  Island. 

30 
4 

South  Carolina.  . 

11 

"l 

11 

15 

23 

Tennessee  

15 

Vermont      ... 

7 

Virginia  

23 

Total  

167 

73 

26 

14 

11 

144 

77 

47 

23 

*  Michigan  had  not  been  formally  admitted  as  a  State  at  the  time  when  the 
electors  were  chosen.  When  the  votes  were  counted  the  President  of  the  Senate 
declared  Martin  Van  Buren  elected  President,  no  election  for  Vice-President. 
The  Senate  then  elected  a  Vice-President,  Richard  M.  Johnson  receiving  33  votes 
and  Francis  Granger  16. 


480 


APPENDIX 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN   1840. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

William  Henry  Harrison, 
of  Ohio. 

Martin  Van  Buren,  of 
New  York. 

John  Tyler,  of  Virginia. 

Richard  M.  Johnson,  of 
Kentucky. 

Littleton  W.  Tazewell, 
of  Virginia. 

James  K.  Polk,  of  Ten 
nessee. 

7 
3 

'5 

8 
3 
11 

'9 
15 
5 
10 
10 
14 
3 
4 

*8 
42 
15 
21 
30 
4 

is 

7 

7 
3 

*5 

'4 

7 

22 

ii 

'i 

8 
3 
11 

Delaware  . 

Georgia  

9 
15 
5 
10 
10 
14 
3 
4 

Kentucky. 

Massachusetts       

Michigan    

4 

7 

ii 

23 

8 
42 
15 
21 
30 
4 

New  York  

Ohio  

Pennsylvania  

Rhode  Island  ... 

15 

7 

Vermont  

Total  

234 

60 

234 

48 

11 

1 

APPENDIX 


481 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  1844. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

|  VICE-PRESIDENT. 

James  K.  Polk,  of 
Tennessee. 

Henry  Clay,  of 
Kentucky. 

P 

o  ** 

*! 

Theodore  Freling- 
huyeen,  of  New 
Jersey. 

9 
3 

*6 
3 

12 

*8 

12 

*7 

ii 

23 

'4 
is 

6 

9 
3 

io 

9 
12 

*6 
9 

'5 
6 

7 
6 

36 

26 
*9 

17 

'e 

3 
12 

's 

12 
'7 

ii 

23 

'i 

13 
6 

10 
9 
12 

6 
9 

Massachusetts.         .  .      

5 
6 

7 
6 

New  York           

36 

Ohio   

Pennsylvania    

26 

Rhode  Island    

9 

Virginia  

17 

Total  

170 

105 

170 

105 

482 


APPENDIX 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  1848. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PBESIDENT. 

Zachary  Taylor,  of 
Louisiana. 

Lewis  Cass,  of 
Michigan. 

Millard  Fillmore,  of 
New  York. 

William  O.  Butler, 
of  Kentucky. 

9 
3 

'9 
12 
4 

*9 

*5 

6 

7 
6 

23 

*9 
'i 

17 

4 

6 
3 
3 
10 

12 
6 

*8 
12 

"l 
36 
11 

26 
4 

13 
*6 

9 
3 

'6 
12 
4 

'9 

5 

6 

7 
6 

23 

*9 
*4 

\1 
4 

6 
3 
3 
10 

Delaware     ...          

Florida  

Illinois               

Indiana  

Kentucky*             ••  

12 
6 

Louisiana.     ......             .... 

8 
12 

Massachusetts            

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey  

7 
36 
11 

North  Carolina     

Ohio       

Pennsylvania              .    . 

26 
4 

Rhode  Island          

Tennessee 

13 

Texas                     

Vermont  

6 

Wisconsin  ,    

Total    

163 

127 

163 

127 

APPENDIX 

-  ELECTORAL  VOTE   m    1852. 


483 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

Franklin  Pierce,  of 
New  Hampshire. 

Winfield  Scott,  of 
Virginia. 

William  Rufus  King, 
of  Alabama. 

William  A.  Graham, 
of  North  Carolina. 

9 
4 
4 
6 
3 
3 
10 
11 
13 
4 

12 

is 

i2 
'5 

9 
4 
4 
6 
3 
3 
10 
11 
13 
4 

"e 

8 
8 

'(3 
7 
9 
5 
7 
35 
10 
23 
27 
4 
8 

'i 

is 

5 

i2 

13 

ii 

'5 

6 

8 
8 

Maryland  

6 
7 
9 
5 
7 
35 
10 
23 
27 
4 
8 

Mississippi             ..        

New  Hampshire  .                 .  .  .  . 

New  York      

Nortli  Carolina         

Ohio..                     

Rhode  Island  .                     .  .  .  • 

South  Carolina  

Texas    

4 

15 
5 

Total  

254 

42 

254 

42 

484 


APPENDIX 


ELECTORAL  VOTE  IN  1856. 


STATES. 

PRESIDENT. 

VICE-PRESIDENT. 

James  Buchanan, 
of  Pennsylvania. 

John  C.  Fremont, 
of  California. 

Millard  Fillmore, 
of  New  York. 

J.  C.  Breckinridge, 
of  Kentucky. 

William  L.  Dayton, 
of  New  Jersey. 

A.  J.  Donelson,  of 
Tennessee. 

Alabama  

9 
4 
4 

9 
4 
4 

*3 
3 

10 
11 
13 

12 
6 

"l 
9 

'7 

io 

27 

*8 

12 
4 

is 

*6 

*4 
*8 

is 

6 

'5 
35 
23 
'i 

'S 
*5 

'% 

California  

6 

'4 
*8 

'& 

3 
3 
10 
11 
13 

Florida  

Georgia    . 

Illinois  

Indiana  

Iowa  

Kentucky 

12 
6 

Louisiana         

Massachusetts  
Michigan 

•• 

13 
6 

's 
35 
23 
*4 

5 
*5 

7 
9 

*7 

New  Hampshire  
New  Jersey  

New  York    

North  Carolina  

10 

Ohio                 ..   . 

Pennsylvania  

27 

Rhode  Island  

South  Carolina  
Tennessee  

8 
12 
4 

Texas  

Vermont  

Virginia  

15 

Wisconsin  

Total  

174 

114 

8 

174 

114 

8 

APPENDIX  II. 

THE  CABINETS  OF  MONROE,  ADAMS,  JACK 
SON,  VAN  BUREN,  HARRISON,  TYLER, 
POLK,  TAYLOR,  FILLMORE,  AND 

PIERCE— 1817-1857. 


THE  SECRETARIES  OF  STATE. 
Department  created  by  Act  of  Congress,  September  15,  1789. 


NAME.       . 

STATE. 

FROM 

John  Quincy  Adams 

Mass 

March  5,  1817 

Henry  Clay.  
James  A.  Hamilton.  .  .  . 
Martin  Van  Buren  
Edward  Livingston   
Louis  McLane  
John  Forsy  th  
J.  L.  Martin  
Daniel  Webster 

Ky  
N.  Y  ... 
N.  Y  ... 
La  
Del  
Ga  
N.  C  .  .  . 
Mass 

March  7,  1825. 
March  4,  1829,  ad  int. 
Marcli  6,  1829. 
May  24,  1831. 
May  29,  1833. 
June  27,  1834. 
March  3,  1841,  ad  int. 
March  5,  1841. 

Hugh  S.  Legare  
Abel  P.  Upshur    .    .  . 

S.  C.... 
Va  

May  9,  1843,  ad  int. 
June  24,  1843,  ad  int. 

Abel  P.  Upshur  
John  Nelson  

Va  
Md.  ... 

July  24,  1843. 
February  29,  1844,  ad  int. 

John  C.  Calhoun  

S.  C  ... 

March  6,  1844. 

James  Buchanan  

Penna  .  . 

March  6,  1845. 

John  M.  Clayton  
Daniel  Webster:  .  

Del  

Mass  .  . 

March  7,  1849. 
July  22,  1850. 

Charles  M.  Conrad.  .  .  . 

Edward  Everett 

La  ..... 
Mass 

September  2,  1852,  ad  int. 
Novembers,  1852. 

William  Hunter  

R.  I  ... 

March  3,  1853,  ad  int 

William  L.  Marcy. 

N  Y 

March  7,  1853 

Lewis  Cass   

Mich  .  . 

March  6,  1857. 

486 


APPENDIX 


THE  SECRETARIES  OF  THE  TREASURY. 
Department  created  by  Act  of  Congress,  September  2,  1789. 


NAME. 

STATE. 

FROM 

William  H.  Crawford  
Samuel  L.  Southard.  .  . 
Richard  Rush 

Ga... 
N.  J.... 
Penna 

October  22,  1816. 
March  7,  1825,  ad  int. 
March  7,  1825 

Samuel  D.  Ingham 

Penna  .  . 

March  6,  1829. 

Asbury  Dickins  
Louis  McLane 

N.  C.... 
Del. 

June  21,  1831,  ad  int. 
August  8,  1831 

William  J.  Duane 

Penna 

May  29,  1833 

Roger  B  Taney     ...        .    . 

Md  

September  23,  1833 

McClintock  Young.    .  . 
Levi  Woodbury  

Md  
N.  H.... 

June  25,  1834,  ad  int. 
June  27,  1834. 

McClintock  Young.  .  .  . 
Thomas  Ewing  
McClintock  Young   .  .  . 
Walter  Forward 

Md  

Ohio.  .  .  . 
Md  
Penna  .  . 

March  3,  1841,  ad  int. 
March  5,  1841. 
September  13,  1841,  ad  int. 
September  13,  1841 

McClintock  Young.  .  .  . 
John  C.  Spencer  
McClintock  Young  
George  M.  Bibb  
Robert  J.  Walker  
McClintock  Young.  .  .  . 
William  M.  Meredith  

Md  
N.  Y.... 
Md  
Ky  

Miss.  .  .  . 
Md  
Penna  .  . 

March  1,  1843,  ad  int. 
March  3,  1843. 
May  2,  J844,  ad  int. 
June  15,  1844. 
March  6,  1845. 
March  6,  1849,  ad  int. 
March  8,  1849. 

Thomas  Corwin 

Ohio 

July  23,  1850. 

James  Guthrie  
Howell  Cobb  

Ky  
Ga  

March  7,  1853. 
March  6,  1857. 

THE  SECRETARIES  OF  WAR. 
Department  created  by  Act  of  Congress,  August  7,  1789. 


NAME. 

STATE. 

FROM 

Isaac  Shelby  
George  Graham 

Ky  
Va  

March  5,  1817. 
April  7,  1817,  ad  int. 

John  C.  Calhoun  
James  Barbour                     . 

S.C.... 
Va  .. 

October  8,  1817. 
March  7,  1825. 

Samuel  L.  Southard  .  .  . 
Peter  B.  Porter  
John  H.  Eaton       

N.  J.  .  .  . 
N.  Y.... 
Tenn 

May  26,  1828,  ad  int. 
May  26,  1828. 
March  9,  1829 

Philip  G.  Randolph  
Roger  B.  Taney  

Va  

Md  

June  18,  1831,  ad  int. 
July  21,  1831,  ad  int. 

APPENDIX 

THE  SECRETARIES  OF  WAR. — Continued. 


487 


NAME. 

STATE. 

FROM 

Ohio  

August  1,  1831. 

Benjamin  F.  Butler.  .  . 
Joel  R   Poinsett      

N.  Y..  .  . 
S.  C.... 

October  25,  1836,  ad  int. 
March  7,  1837. 

John  Bell      

Tenn.  .  . 

March  5,  1841. 

John  McLean  

Ohio.  .  .  . 

September  13,  1841. 

N.  Y... 

October  12,  1841. 

James  M    Porter 

Penna  .  . 

March  8,  1843. 

William  Wilkins  

Penna  .  . 

February  15,  1844. 

William  L.  Marcy  
George  W.  Crawford  
Winfield  Scott     

N.  Y..  . 
Ga  
Va  

March  5,  1845. 
March  8,  1849. 
July  23,  1850,  ad  int. 

Charles  M.  Conrad  
Jefferson  Davis  
Samuel  Cooper  
John  B   Floyd     

La  

Miss.  .  .  . 
N.  Y... 
Va  

August  15,  1850. 
March  7,  1853. 
March  3,  1857,  ad  int. 
March  6,  1857. 

THE  SECRETARIES  OF  THE  NAVY. 
Department  created  by  Act  of  Congress,  April  30,  1798. 


NAME. 

STATE. 

FROM 

Benjamin  W.  Crowninshield 
Smith  Thompson         

Mass  .  .  . 
N.  Y...  . 

December  19,  1814. 
November  9,  1818. 

John  liod^ers       .  . 

Md 

September  1,  1823,  ad  int. 

Samuel  L.  Southard  
John  Branch          .        

N.  J.  ... 

N.  C.  .  .  . 

September  16,  1823. 
March  9,  1829. 

N.  H 

May  23,  1831. 

Mahlon  Dickerson 

N.  J. 

June  30,  1834. 

James  K.  Paulding  
George  E    Badger 

N.  Y.  .  .  . 
N.  C     . 

June  25,  1838. 
March  5,  1841 

Abel  P  Upshur 

Va  

September  13,  1841. 

Mass..  .  . 

July  24,  1843. 

Thomas  W   Gilmer          

Va 

February  15,  1844. 

John  Y   Mason               .... 

Va   

March  14,  1844. 

George  Bancroft  
John  Y   Mason 

Mass  
Va   ... 

March  10,  1845. 
September  9,  1846. 

William  B.  Preston  
William  A.  Graham  
John  P   Kennedy 

Va  
N.  C.... 
Md  ... 

March  8,  1849. 
July  22,  1850. 
July  22,  1852. 

N.  C.  .  .  . 

March  7,  1853. 

Conn  .  . 

March  6,  1857. 

488 


APPENDIX 


THE  SECRETARIES  OF  THE  INTERIOR. 
Department  created  by  Act  of  Congress,  March  3,  1849. 


NAME. 

STATE. 

FROM 

Thomas  Ewing  . 

Ohio 

March  8,  1849 

Thomas  M.  T.  McKennan.  . 
Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart...  . 
Kobert  McClelland  

Penna  .  . 
Va  
Mich    .  . 

August  15,  1850. 
September  12,  1850.] 
March  7,  1853. 

Jacob  Thompson  

Miss.  .  .  . 

March  6,  1857. 

THE  ATTORNEYS-GENERAL. 

Duties  prescribed  by  the  Judiciary  Act  of  September  24,  1789. 
Department  reorganized  in  1870. 


NAME. 

STATE. 

FROM 

Richard  Rush   

Penna... 

February  10,  1814. 

William  Wirt  

Va  

November  3,  1817. 

John  M.  Berrien  

Ga.... 

March  9,  1829. 

Roger  B.  Taney  

Md  

July  20,  1831. 

N.  Y.. 

November  15,  1833. 

Felix  Grundy 

Tenn 

July  5,  1838 

Henry  D   Gilpin  

Penna 

July  11    1840. 

John  J.  Crittenden  
Hugh  S.  Legare  
John  Nelson     

Ky  
S.  C.... 
Md. 

March  5,  1841. 
September  13,  1841. 
July  1,  1843. 

John  Y.  Mason   .    ... 

Va  .     . 

March  6,  1845. 

Nathan  Clifford  
Isaac  Toucey  .           

Me  

Conn 

October  17,  1846. 
June  21,  1848. 

Reverdy  Johnson  
John  J.  Crittenden  
Caleb  Gushing         

Md  
Ky  
Mass. 

March  8,  1849. 
July  22,  1850. 
March  7,  1853. 

Jeremiah  S  Black. 

Penna 

March  6,  1857 

APPENDIX 


489 


THE  POSTMASTERS-GENERAL. 

A  Bureau  of  the  Treasury  until  1829.     Made  a  Cabinet  office  in 
that  year. 


NAMB. 

STATE. 

FROM 

Return  J.  Meigs,  Jr  
John  McLean  
William  T.  Barry  
Amos  Kendall    

Ohio.... 
Ohio  
Ky  
Ky  

Conn  .  .  . 

March  17,  1814. 
June  26,  1823. 
March  9,  1829. 
March  1,  1835. 
May  19,  1840. 

Francis  Granger  
Charles  A.  Wickliffe  
Cave  Johnson  

N.  Y.... 
Ky  

Tenn  .  .  . 

March  6,  1841. 
September  13,  1841. 
March  6,  1845. 

Jacob  Collainer         . 

vt  

March  8,  1849. 

Nathan  K   Hall   

N.  Y  .  .  . 

July  23,  1850. 

Samuel  D   Hubbard 

Conn 

August  31,  1852. 

James  Campbell    ...   ... 

Penna 

March  7,  1853. 

Tenn.  .. 

March  6,  1857. 

CHRONOLOGY 


Territory  of  Missouri  erected June  4,  1812 

Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson August  10,  1814 

Treaty  of  Ghent  signed December  24,  1814 

Commonwealth  of  Indiana  admitted December  11,  1816 

Madison's  veto  of  internal  improvements  bill March  3,  1817 

Attack  on  Fowltown November  21,  1817 

Commonwealth  of  Mississippi  admitted December  10,  1817 

Jackson's  "  Rhea  "  letter  to  Monroe January  6,  1818 

Execution  of  Ambrister  and  Arbuthnot April  29,  1818 

Convention  with  Great  Britain  as  to  Oregon October  20,  1818 

Commonwealth  of  Illinois  admitted December  3,  1813 

Tallmadge  amendment  offered February  13,  1819 

Treaty  with  Spain  as  to  Florida February  22,  1819 

Decision  in  McCulloch  vs.  Maryland 1819 

Commonwealth  of  Alabama  admitted December  14,  1819 

Thomas  amendment  offered February  3,  1820 

Maine  bill  approved March  3,  1820 

First  Missouri  bill  approved March  6,  1820 

Commonwealth  of  Maine  admitted March  15,  1820 

Report  of  Clay's  Committee  of  Thirteen February  10,  1821 

Second  Missouri  bill  approved March  2,  1821 

Jackson,  as  Governor,  takes  command  in  Florida. .  .July  17,  1821 

Commonwealth  of  Missouri  admitted August  10,  1821 

Congress  of  Verona October-December,  1822 

Monroe's  veto  of  internal  improvements  bill May  4,  1822 

Clay  nominated  for  presidency  by  the  Kentucky  legislature. 

November  18,  1822 

"  Monroe  Doctrine  "  announced December  2,  1823 

Congressional  caucus  nominates  Crawford February  14,  1824 

Harrisburg  convention March  4,  1824 

Jackson's  "  Coleman  Letter  " April  26,  1824 

Presidential  election  in  House  of  Representatives Feb.  9, 1825 


492  CHRONOLOGY 

Indian  Springs  convention February  12,  1825 

Mexico-Columbia  treaty September  25,  1825 

The  Creek  treaty January,  1826 

Abduction  of  Morgan September  11,  12,  1826 

Protectionist  convention  at  Harrisburg July  30,  1827 

Treaty  with  Great  Britain August  6,  1 827 

Tariff  bill  approved May  19,  1828 

The  "  South  Carolina  Exposition  "  published 1828 

Hayne's  speech  on  Foote's  resolution January  19,  1830 

Webster's  reply  to  Hayne January  26,  1830 

Jackson's  speech  on  the  Union April  13,  1830 

Veto  of  the  Maysville  Road  bill May  27,  1830 

Publication  of  the  "  Liberator  "  begun January  1,  1831 

"  Address  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina"  published 

July  26,  1831 

The  Southampton  massacre August,  1831 

Anti-Masonic  convention  at  Baltimore September  26,  1831 

National  Republican  convention  at  Baltimore.. December  12,  1831 

New  England  Anti-Slavery  Society  formed January  6,  1832 

Bank  of  fhe  United  States  asks  re-charter January  9,  1832 

National  Democratic  convention  at  Baltimore May  21,  1832 

Calhoun's  letter  to  Governor  Hamilton August  28,  1832 

South  Carolina  convention  meets  at  Columbia. .November  19,  1832 

Ordinance  of  nullification November  24,  1832 

President  Jackson's  nullification  proclamation.. December  10,  1832 

Clay  proposes  compromise  tariff February  12,  1833 

The  "  Force  Bill  "  approved March  2,  1833 

Compromise  tariff  bill  approved March  2,  1833 

Re-assembling  of  the  South  Carolina  convention.  .March  11,  1833 

The  "  Paper  read  in  the  Cabinet " September  18,  1833 

Removal  of  the  deposits  ordered September  26,  1833 

American  Anti-Slavery  Society  formed December,  1833 

Van  Buren  nominated  by  Baltimore  convention May  20,  1835 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  post-office  robbed July  29,  1835 

Provisional  declaration  of  Texan  independence.. November  7,  1835 

Meeting  of  Texas  convention March  1,  1836 

Declaration  of  Texan  independence March  2,  1836 

The  Alamo  massacre March  6,  1836 

Battle  of  San  Jaciuto April  21,  1836 

House  adopts  the  " gag"  resolution May  26,  1836 

Commonwealth  of  Arkansas  admitted June  15,  1836 


CHRONOLOGY  493 


The  "  Specie  Circular  " July  11,  1836 

Senate  passes  the  "  expunging  resolution  " January  16,  1837 

Commonwealth  of  Michigan  admitted January  26,  1837 

Financial  panic  begins April,  1837 

Murder  of  Lovejoy November  7,  1837 

Harrisburg  "  harmony  "  convention September  4,  1839 

Whig  convention  at  Harrisburg December  4,  1839 

Democratic-Republican  convention  at  Baltimore May  5,  1840 

Independent  Treasury  bill  approved July  4,  1840 

Death  of  President  Harrison April  4,  1841 

The  Ashburton  treaty August  9,  1842 

Veto  of  National  Bank  bill August  16,  1842 

Second  bank  bill  vetoed September  9,  1842 

Abolition  convention  at  Buffalo August  30,  1843 

Whitman's  party  reaches  the  Columbia September  5,  1843 

Whig  convention  at  Baltimore May  1,  1844 

Democratic  convention  at  Baltimore May  27,  1844 

Commonwealth  of  Florida  admitted March  3,  1845 

Folk's  message  on  Oregon December  2,  1845 

Commonwealth  of  Texas  admitted December  29,  1845 

Mexicans  cross  the  Nueces April  23,  1846 

Arista  notifies  Taylor  of  beginning  of  hostilities April  24,  1846 

Battle  of  Palo  Alto May  8,  1846 

Congress  declares  war  begun  by  Mexico May  12,  13,  1846 

Treaty  with  Great  Britain  as  to  Oregon June  15,  1846 

Kearny  takes  Santa  Fe August  18,  1846 

Battle  of  Monterey September  21-23,  1846 

Commonwealth  of  Iowa  admitted December  28,  1846 

Battle  of  Buena  Vista February  22,  23,  1847 

Capture  of  Vera  Cruz March  27-29,  1847 

Battle  of  Cerro  Gordo.  April  18,  1847 

Battle  of  Chapultepec September  12,  13, 1847 

Treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo February  2,  1848 

Democratic  convention  at  Baltimore May  22,  1848 

Special  message  on  Oregon May  29,  1848 

Commonwealth  of  Wisconsin  admitted May  29,  1848 

Abolition  convention  at  Rochester June  2,  1848 

Whig  convention  at  Philadelphia June  7,  1848 

Special  message  on  California  and  New  Mexico July  6,  1848 

Free-soil  convention  at  Buffalo August  9,  1858 

Territory  of  Oregon  organized August  14,  1848 


494  CHRONOLOGY 


California  convention  at  Monterey September  1,  1849 

Clay  proposes  bis  compromise January  29,  1850 

Calhoun's  last  speecb Marcb  4,  1850 

Webster's  speech  on  the  Constitution March  7,  1850 

Death  of  Calhoun March  31,  1850 

Clayton-Bulwer  treaty April  19,  1850 

Clay  reports  on  the  compromise May  8,  1850 

Death  of  President  Taylor July  9,  1850 

Commonwealth  of  California  admitted September  9,  1850 

President's  message  on  the  fugitive  slave  law  .  .February  21,  1851 

The  "Jerry  rescue" October,  1851 

Democratic  convention  at  Baltimore June  1,  1852 

Whig  convention  at  Baltimore June  16,  1852 

Death  of  Clay June  29,  1852 

Free-soil  Democratic  convention  at  Pittsburg August  11,  1852 

Death  of  Webster October  23,  1852 

The  Gadsden  treaty December  30,  1853 

Douglas  reports  on  Nebraska January  4,  1854 

*  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  approved May  30,  1854 

Salt  Creek  Valley  convention June  10,  1854 

The  Ostend  manifesto October  18,  1854 

^Congressional  election  in  Kansas November  29,  1854 

"    Territorial  election  in  Kansas March  30,  1855 

v   Kansas  legislature  meets  at  Pawnee July  2,  1855 

-  Robinson's  speech  at  Lawrence July  4,  1855 

^  Convention  at  Lawrence,  Kansas August  14,  1855 

v  Convention  at  Big  Springs,  Kansas September  5,  1855 

v  Convention  at  Topeka,  Kansas September  19,  1855 

x   Convention  at  Topeka,  Kansas October  23,  1855 

v  Popular  vote  on  the  Topeka  constitution December  15,  1855 

'    Robinson  elected  governor  of  Kansas January  5,  1856 

'  President's  proclamation  on  Kansas February  11,  1856 

-   Kansas  Free-state  legislature  meets March  4,  1856 

Philadelphia  convention  of  the  "  American  party  ".  Feb.  22,  1856 

•  Congressional  committee  begins  sessions  at  Kansas  City 

April  14,  1856 
'  Summer's  speech  on  the  "  Crime  against  Kansas  ".May  19,  20,  1856 

—  The  sack  of  Lawrence May  21,  1856 

»  Brooks's  attack  on  Sumner May  22,  1856 

Massacre  at  Dutch  Henry's  Crossing May  24,  1856 

Affair  at  Black  Jaok . .  June  2,  1856 


CHRONOLOGY  495 

A.D. 

Democratic  national  convention  at  Cincinnati June  2,  1856 

Republican  national  convention  at  Philadelphia June  17,  1856 

-  Assault  on  Sheriff  Jones June  23,  1856 

House  Committee  reports  on  Kansas July  1,  1856 

Dispersal  of  Free-state  legislature  at  Topeka July  4,  1856 

Oliver  makes  minority  report  on  Kansas July  11,  1856 

^Treaty  at  Lawrence August  17,  1856 

Woodson's  proclamation  in  Kansas August  25,  1856 

Destruction  of  Ossawattomie August  29,  1856 

Whig  convention  at  Baltimore September  17,  1856 

—  Free-state  legislature  dispersed  at  Topeka January  6,  1857 

—Territorial  legislature  meets  at  Lecompton January  12,  1857 

Dred  Scott  decision March  6,  1857 

-  Election  of  Lecompton  constitutional  convention. .  .June  15,  1857 

-  Meeting  of  Free-state  convention  at  Topeka July  15,  1857 

~  Convention  at  Lecompton,  Kansas September  7,  1857 

-  Free-state  election  in  Kansas October  5,  1857 

-  Convention  at  Lecompton,  Kansas October  19,  1857 

-  Mass-meeting  at  Lawrence,  Kansas December  2,  1857 

*~  Kansas  legislature  meets  at  Lecompton December  7,  1857 

-  Pro-slavery  vote  on  the  Lecompton  constitution .  December  21, 1857 

-  Free-state  vote  on  the  Lecompton  constitution. .  .January  4,  1858 

Buchanan's  message  on  Kansas February  2,  1858 

Commonwealth  of  Minnesota  admitted May  11,  1858 

•  Vote  in  Kansas  on  the  English  bill  propositions. .  .August  2,  1858 
Commonwealth  of  Oregon  admitted February  14,  1859 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

THIS  bibliography  must  not  be  taken  as  containing  the 
material  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume,  but  as 
a  list  of  good  books  recommended  to  the  general  reader, 
which  treat  of,  or  touch  upon,  the  subjects  considered. 
Only  a  few  of  the  books  in  this  list  have  been  consulted 
by  the  author  in  the  preparation  of  this  work.  As  in 
dicated  in  the  preface,  the  author  has  endeavored,  in 
all  cases,  to  go  back  to  original  matter,  which  is  usually 
disconnected  and  fragmentary,  and  practically  inacces 
sible  to  the  general  reader. 

LIST  OF   TITLES 

The  alpliabetical  arrangement  is,  in  most  instances,  based  upon  the 
names  of  autkws  or  editors. 

Adams,  C.  F. :  Railroads  ;  their  origin  and  problems.  New  York, 

1878. 

Adams,  H.:  Life  of  Albert  Gallatin.     Philadelphia,  1879. 
Adams,  H. :  History  of  the  United  States.    9  vols.     New  York, 

1889-91. 

Adams,  H.:  John  Randolph.     Boston,  1882. 
Adams,  J.  Q.:  Memoirs;  Comprising  Parts  of  His  Diary  from 

1795  to  1848.     12  vols.    Philadelphia,  1874-77. 
Alfriend,  F.  H.:  Life  of  Jefferson  Davis.     Cincinnati,  1868. 
Baker,  G.  E.  [Ed.]  :  Works  of  William  H.  Seward.  5  vols.  New 

York,  1853-54. 
Bancroft,  H.  H.:  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  1530-1888.     San 

Francisco,  1889. 


498  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bancroft,  EL  H. :  History  of  California.     7  vols.     San  Francisco, 

1884-90. 
Bancroft,  H.  H.:  North  Mexican  States  and  Texas,  1531-1889. 

2  vols.     San  Francisco,  1884. 
Bancroft,  H.  H.:   Oregon,  1834-1888.     2  vols.     San  Francisco, 

1886-88. 
Barrows,  W.:  Oregon:  The  Struggle  for  Possession.      Boston, 

1883. 
Benton,  T.  H. :  Thirty  Years'  View ;  or,  History  of  the  Working 

of  the  American  Government  for  Thirty  Years,  from  1820  to 

1850.     2  vols.     New  York,  1854-56. 

Birney,  W. :  James  G.  Birney  and  His  Times.     New  York,  1890. 
Blaine,  J.  G.:  Twenty  Years  of  Congress  (1860-80).     2  vols. 

Norwich,  1884-86. 
Bolles,  A.  S. :  The  Financial  History  of  the  United  States.  3  vols. 

New  York,  1879-86. 
Bolles,  A.  S. :  Industrial  History  of  the  United  States.    Norwich, 

1878. 
Bourne,  E.  G. :  History  of  the  Surplus  Revenue  of  1837.     New 

York,  1885. 

Bruce,  H. :  Life  of  General  Houston.     New  York,  1891. 
Bryce,  J. :  The  American  Commonwealth.    2  vols.     New  York, 

1895. 

Cairnes,  J.  E. :  Slave  Power  :  Its  Character,  Career,  and  Prob 
able  Designs.     New  York,  1862. 

Calhonn,  J.  C.:  Works.     6  vols.     New  York,  1853-55. 
Carr,  L.:  Missouri,  a  Bone  of  Contention.     Boston,  1888. 
Channing,  E.:  The  United  States  of  America,  1765-1865.     New 

York,  1896. 
Clioate,  R.:  Works,  with  a  Memoir  by  S.  G.  Brown.     2  vols. 

Boston,  1862. 
Chase,  L.  B. :  History  of  the  Polk  Administration.     New  York, 

1850. 
Cobb,  T.  R.  R.:    Historical  Sketch  of  Slavery.     Philadelphia, 

1858. 
Cobb,  T.  R.  R. :  Enquiry  into  the  Law  of  Negro  Slavery  in  the 

United  States.     Philadelphia,  1858. 

Colton,  C.  [Ed.]:  Works  of  Henry  Clay.  6  vols.  New  York,  1857. 
Colton,  C. :  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Clay.     2  vols.     New  York, 

1846. 
Colton,  C.  [Ed.]:  Private  Correspondence  of  Henry  Clay.     New 

York,  1855. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  499 

Colton,  C.:  The  Last  Seven  Years  of  the  Life  of  Henry  Clay. 

New  York,  1856. 
Cooper,  T.:    Lectures  on  the  Elements  of   Political  Economy. 

Columbia,  1826. 
Curtis,  G.  T.:  Constitutional    History  of  the  United  States.     2 

vols.     New  York,  1889,  1896. 
Curtis,  G.  T.:  Life  of  James  Buchanan.     2  vols.     New  York, 

1883. 

Curtis,  G.  T. :  Life  of  Daniel  Webster.     2  vols.    New  York,  1870. 
Davis,  J.:  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government. 

2 'vols.     New  York,  1881. 
Davis,  V.  H. :  Jefferson  Davis,  ex-President  of  the  Confederate 

States.     2  vols.     New  York,  1890. 
Douglass,  F. :  Life  and  Times.     Written  by  himself.     Hartford, 

1881. 
Draper,  J.W.:  History  of  the  American  Civil  War.    3  vols.    New 

York,  1867-70. 
Dunbar,  C.  F. :  Laws  of  the  United  States  relating  to  currency, 

finance  and  banking  from  1789  to  1891.     Boston,  1893. 
Fremont,  J.  C. :  Memoirs  of  My  Life.     Chicago,  1887. 
Frothingham,  O.  B. :   Gerrit  Smith  ;  A  Biography.     New  York, 

1879. 
Frothingham,  O.  B. :  Theodore  Parker  ;  A  Biography.    Boston, 

1874. 
Gannett,  H.:  Boundaries  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  several 

States  and  Territories.     Washington,  1885. 
Giddings,  J.  R.:  Speeches  in  Congress.     Boston,  1853. 
Gillet,  R.  H.:  Democracy  in  the  United  States.    New  York,  1868. 
Gilman,  D.  C.:  James  Monroe  in  his  Relation  to  the  Public  Ser 
vice.     Boston,  1883. 

Greeley,  H.:  The  American  Conflict.    2  vols.    Hartford,  1864-67. 
Greeley,  H. :  Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life.     New  York,  1868. 
Greeley,  H.:  History  of  the  Struggle  for  Slavery  Extension  or 

Restriction  in  the  United  States.     New  York,  1856. 
Hall,  B.  F. :  The  Republican  Party,  1796-1832.  New  York,  1856. 
Hammond,  J.  D.:  The  History  of  Political  Parties  in  the  State 

of  New  York.     4th  edit.     2  vols.     Cooperstown,  1846. 
Hay,  J.:  see  Nicolay,  J.  G. 
Helper,  H.  R.:  Impending  Crisis  of  the  South,  and  how  to  meet 

it.     New  York,  1857. 

Hildreth,  R.:  The  History  of  the  United  States.    6  vols.    New 
York,  1851-56. 


500  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Hoist,  H.  E.  von  :  The  Constitutional  History  of  the  United 
States.  8  vols.  Chicago,  1876-92. 

Hoist,  H.  E.  von  :  John  Brown.     Boston,  1888. 

Hoist,  H.  E.  von  :  John  C.  Calhoun.     Boston,  1882. 

Hurd,  J.  C.:  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage  in  the  United  States. 
2  vols.  Boston,  1858-62. 

Jay,  W. :  Miscellaneous  writings  on  slavery.     Boston,  1853. 

Jay,  W. :  Review  of  the  Causes  and  Consequences  of  the  Mex 
ican  War.  Boston,  1849. 

Jenkins,  J.  S. :  History  of  Political  Parties  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  Auburn,  1846. 

Jenkins,  J.  S. :  Life  of  James  K.  Polk.     Auburn,  1850. 

Johnson,  O. :  William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  his  Times.  Boston, 
1880. 

Johnston,  A.:  History  of  American  Politics.     New  York,  1880. 

Johnston,  A.  [Ed.]:  Representative  American  Orations.  3  vols. 
New  York,  1884. 

Julian,  G.  W. :  Life  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings.     Chicago,  1892. 

Kapp,  F. :  Die  Sklaverei  in  den  Vereiuigten  Staaten.  Hamburg, 
1861. 

Kinley,  D. :  History,  Organization,  and  Influence  of  the  Inde 
pendent  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  New  York,  1893. 

Knox,  J.  J.:  United  States  Notes.     New  York,  1888. 

Lalor,  J.  J. :  Cyclopaedia  of  Political  Science,  Political  Economy, 
and  of  the  Political  History  of  the  United  States.  3  vols. 
Chicago,  1881-84. 

Lodge,  H.  C.:  Daniel  Webster.     Boston,  1883. 

Lyman,  T. :  Diplomacy  of  the  United  States.     Boston,  1826. 

Mackenzie,  W.  L. :  Life  and  Times  of  M.  Van  Buren.  Boston, 
1846. 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.:  Lewis  Cass.     Boston,  1891. 

McCulloch,  H.:  Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Century.  New 
York,  1888. 

Mallory,  D. :  Life  and  Speeches  of  Henry  Clay.  2  vols.  New 
York,  1843. 

May,  S.  J. :  Memoirs  :  Consisting  of  Autobiography  and  Selec 
tions  from  his  Diary  and  Correspondence.  Boston,  1873. 

May,  S.  J.  :  Some  Recollections  of  our  Anti-Slavery  Conflict. 
Boston,  1869. 

Morse,  J.  T.,  Jr.:  Abraham  Lincoln.    2  vols.     Boston,  1893. 

Morse,  J.  T.,  Jr.:  John  Quiucy  Adams.     Boston,  1882. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  501 

Nicolay,  J.  G.  and  Hay,  J. :  Abraham  Lincoln:  A  History.  10 
vols.  New  York,  1890. 

Nicolay,  J.  G.  and  Hay,  J.  [Eds.]  :  Complete  Works  of  Abra 
ham  Lincoln.  2  vols.  New  York,  1894. 

Nixon,  O.  W.:  How  Marcus  Whitman  Saved  Oregon.  Chicago, 
1895. 

Ormsby,  R.  McK.:  History  of  the  Whig  Party.    Boston,  1860. 

Parker,  J.:  Personal  Liberty  Laws.     Boston,  1861. 

Parton,  J.:  General  Jackson.     New  York,  1893. 

Parton,  J.:  Life  of  Andrew  Jackson.     3  vols.     Boston,  1883.    ^ 

Phillips,  W.:  Conquest  of  Kansas.     Boston,  1856. 

Phillips,  W.:  Speeches,  Lectures,  and  Letters.     Boston,  1863. 

Pierce,  E.  L. :  Memoir  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner.  4  vols. 
Boston,  1893. 

Pike,  J.  S.:  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War.  New  York,  1879. 

Pollard,  E.  A. :  The  Lost  Cause.     New  York,  1868. 

Quincy,  E.:  Life  of  Josiah  Quincy.     Boston,  1867. 

Quincy,  J. :  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  John  Quincy  Adams.  Bos 
ton,  1858. 

Redpath,  J. :  Public  Life  of  Capt.  John  Brown.     Boston,  1860. 

Rhodes,  J.  F.:  History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Compromise 
of  1850.  3  vols.  New  York,  1893-95. 

Robinson,  C.:   The  Kansas  Conflict.     New  York,  1892. 

Robinson,  S.  T.  L.:  Kansas,  Its  Interior  and  its  Exterior  Life. 
Boston,  1856. 

Roosevelt,  T.:  Thomas  Hart  Benton.    Boston,  1887. 

Royce,  J.:  California  from  the  Conquest  in  1846  to  the  Second 
Vigilance  Committee  in  San  Francisco.  Boston,  1886. 

Schouler,  J.:  History  of  the  United  States  Under  the  Constitution. 
5  vols.  New  York,  1893. 

Schurz,  C. :  Life  of  Henry  Clay.     2  vols.     Boston,  1887. 

Schuyler,  E.:  American  Diplomacy.     New  York,  1886. 

Seward,  W.  H.:  Autobiography,  from  1801  to  1834,  with  a  Me 
moir  of  His  Life.  New  York,  1877. 

Seward,  W.  H. :  Life  and  Public  Services  of  John  Quincy  Adams. 
Auburn,  1849. 

Shepard,  E.  M.:  Martin  Van  Buren.     Boston,  1888. 

Smith,  W.  L.  G. :  Fifty  Years  of  Public  Life  ;  the  Life  and  Times 
of  Lewis  Cass.  New  York,  1856. 

Spring,  L.  W. :  Kansas  ;  the  Prelude  to  the  War  for  the  Union. 
Boston,  1885. 


502  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Stanwood,  E.:   A  History  of   Presidential  Elections.     Boston, 

1892. 
Stephens,  A.  H.:  A  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  between 

the  States.    2  vols.     Philadelphia,  1868-70. 
Stickney,  W.  [Ed.]  :  Autobiography  of  Amos  Kendall.     Boston, 

1872. 
Story,  W.  W.:  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story.  2  vols.  Boston, 

1851. 
Story,  W.  W.    [Ed.J  :  Miscellaneous  Writings  of  Joseph  Story. 

Boston,  1835. 

Strohm,  I.  [Ed.]  :  Speeches  of  Thomas  Corwin.     Dayton,  1859. 
Sumner,  C.:  Works.     15  vols.     Boston,  1870-83. 
Sumner,  W.  G. :  Andrew  Jackson  as  a  Public  Man.    Boston,  1882. 
Sumner,  W.  G.:    History  of  American  Currency.     New  York, 

1884. 

Taussig,  F.  W. :  State  Papers  and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff.     Cam 
bridge,  1893. 
Taussig,  F.  W.:  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,  1789-1888. 

New  York,  1888. 

Tha3rer,  E. :  History  of  the  Kansas  Crusade.     New  York,  1889. 
Tyler,  L.  G.:  Letters  and.  Times  of  the  Tylers.    2  vols.     Rich 
mond,  1884. 

Tyler,  S.:  Memoir  of  R.  B.  Taney.     Baltimore,  1872. 
Van  Buren,  M. :  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  Political 

Parties  in  the  United  States.     New  York,  1867. 
Webster,  D.:  Works.     6  vols.     Boston,  1851. 
Webster,  F.  [Ed.]:  Private  Correspondence  of  Daniel  Webster. 

2  vols.     Boston,  1857. 
Williams,  A.  M.:  Sam  Houston  and  the  War  of  Independence  in 

Texas.     Boston,  1893. 
Williams,  E.:   The  Statesman's  Manual.    4  vols.     New  York, 

1849. 
Wilson,  H.:  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power  in 

America.     3  vols.     Boston,  1872-77. 

Wilson,  W. :  Division  and  Reunion,  1829-1889.     New  York,  1893. 
Wise,  H.  A.:  Seven  Decades  of  the  Union.     Philadelphia,  1876. 
Woodbury,  L.:  Writings,  Political,  Judicial,   and  Literary.     3 

vols.     Boston,  1852. 
Yoakum,  H.  K. :  History  of  Texas,  from  its  First  Settlement  in 

1685,  to  its  Annexation  to  the  United  States  in  1846.     2  vols. 

New  York,  1856. 


INDEX 


Material  in  the  Appendices  is  not  included  in  this  Index 


ABBOTT,  J.  B..  leader  of  "Free- 
state"  Company,  428 

Abolition,  242  et  seq. ;  relation  to 
Revolution  of  1830,  244,  245;  its 
philosophy,  245  ;  the  opposite  the 
ory,  245 ;  the  true  philosophy  of 
history,  245,  246  ;  the  beginning  of 
abolition,  246  (see  Garrison,  Will 
iam  Lloyd)  ;  possible  ways  of  at 
tacking  slavery,  248  ;  charges  as  to 
Southampton  massacre,  249 ;  de 
nials  by  abolitionist  historians, 
249;  abolitionist  methods,  249, 
250;  killing  of  Lovejoy,  250;  sig 
nificance  of  abolition  movement, 

250,  251 ;    its    growth,    251 ;    the 
moderates,  251 ;  petitions  for  ab 
olition   in   District   of   Columbia, 

251,  252 ;  position  of  Adams,  252, 
253 ;  Quaker  petition,  253  ;  position 
of  Mason  and  Adams,  253 ;  more 
petitions,  253  (see  Petition,   right 
of)  ;  Dickson    presents  petitions, 
254 ;  his  controversy  with  Chinn, 
254;  the  Fairfield  petitions,  254; 
excitement  begun  by  Slade's  mo 
tion,  254 ;  Folk's  ruling,  255  ;  ac 
tion   on   Jackson's    petitions,  255 
et  scq.  ;  assumption  as   to  ethical 
position,  265  ;  attitude  of  Calhoun 
and  Rives,  267,  268 ;  the  Vermont 
petition,  269  ;  the  Calhoun  resolu 
tions,  269;  use  of  mails,  270  ct  seq. 
(,see  Mail,  United  States) ;  signifi 
cance  of  the  contests  over  petitions 
and  the  mails,  274-27?  ;  result  of 
struggle  over   petitions,    296  ;  de 
mands  of  Clay,  319 ;  criticism  of 
Clay   as  to  annexation,  320 ;  can 
didacy  of  Birney,  320  ;  position  on 
Folk's  first  message,  324,  325  ;  as  to 
war  with  Mexico,  330,  331  ;  atti 
tude  on  Texan  boundary,  355  ;  atti 


tude  to  fugitive  slave  law  of  1793, 
355  ;  attitude  to  Clay's  proposals, 
357  ;  Webster's  Seventh  of  March 
speech,  359  ;  effect  of  propaganda, 
366  ;  nomination  of  Hale  for  presi 
dency,  377;  the  National  Era  ad 
dress,  389  ;  effect  of  the  address, 
400  ;  as  to  leaders  of  Emigrant  Aid 
Company,  413;  relation  of  Kan 
sas  affairs  to  presidential  nominee, 
431;  point  of  view  of  the  "  Crime 
against  Kansas,"  439 
Abolitionists,  see  Abolition 
Adams,  John  Quincy,  relation  to 
Jackson,  34-36 ;  opinion  of  treaty 
with  Spain,  36  ;  negotiations  with 
Spain,  37,  38;  effect  of  Semi- 
nole  War,  38  ;  declaration  to  Tuyl, 
124,  125;  qualification  as  presi 
dential  candidate  in  1824, 132-136  ; 
electoral  vote  of  1824,  136,  137; 
supported  in  House  by  Clay,  141 ; 
the  Kremer  charge,  141  ;  elected 
president,  142;  offers  State  De 
partment  to  Clay,  142, 143  ;  threats 
of  opposition,  142,  143 ;  no  proof 
of  bargain  with  Clay,  143;  oppo 
sition  to  Administration  organized, 
144-146 ;  relation  to  Panama  Con 
gress,  148,  149;  nominates  com 
missioners  to  the  Congress,  149; 
nomination  confirmed,  150  ;  rela 
tion  to  Spain's  colonies,  152,  153; 
as  to  internal  improvements,  155, 
156  ;  message  of  December,  1826, 
157;  appropriations  approved  for 
internal  improvements,  169  ;  chair 
man  of  committee,  184;  reports 
tariff  bill,  1 85  ;  bill  passed,  186 ; 
report  on  Bank,  191  ;  relation  to 
Bank  history,  192;  representations 
from  Creek  chiefs,  212 ;  order s 
Gaines  to  Georgia,  213 ;  contro_ 


504 


INDEX 


versy  with  Troup,  213,  214 ;  steps 
to  carry  out  agreement  of  1826, 
214;  defiance  of  Georgia,  214; 
submits  matter  to  Congress,  215 ; 
refers  Cherokee  affair  to  Jackson, 
215,  216;  view  of  Indian  titles, 
217  ;  principles  of  administration 
reviewed  by  Supreme  Court,  219 ; 
relation  to  Cabinet  intrigue  against 
Jackson,  220 ;  as  to  authorship  of 
Jacksonian  principles,  240;  pre 
sents  abolition  petitions,  252  ;  his 
position  on  abolition,  252,  253; 
prevents  debate  on  abolition  peti 
tions,  253 ;  compared  with  Slade, 
254 ;  opinion  as  to  procedure  on 
petitions,  256  ;  appeal  for  right  of 
petition,  257  ;  presents  petition  on 
abolition,  258,  259  ;  his  belief  as  to 
the  right  involved,  259 ;  effort  at 
settlement,  260  ;  affair  of  February 
6,  1837,  262 ;  address  on  annexa 
tion,  303 

"  Address  on  the  Relations  of  the 
States  and  Federal  Government," 
179 

"Address  to  the  People  of  South 
Carolina,"  179 

Admiralty  jurisdiction,  proposal  to 
decrease  that  of  federal  courts,  109 

Africa,  41 

Alabama,  Commonwealth  of,  in  proc 
ess  of  creation,  62 ;  slavery  al 
lowed,  63 ;  Indian  problem  in 
Jackson's  message  of  1829,  216, 
217;  Alabama  letter  of  Clay,  319, 
320 ;  vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
399;  Buford's  men  in  Kansas. 
438 

Alamo  atrocities,  293,  294 

Albany  Regency,  The,  133 ;  in  elec 
tion  of  1824,  i37 

Alien  and  Sedition  Laws,  173 

Alleghanies,  The,  116,  129,  139,  163, 
193 

Ambrister,  Robert  C.,  32,  36 

Amelia  Island,  30,  31 

America  for  Americans,  principle  of, 
418 

American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
formed,  251 

American  Board  of  Missions,  sends 
out  Whitman,  315 

American  Society  for  Emancipation, 

"  American  System,"  The,  178,  189 
(see  Clay,  H. ) 


Ampudia,  Pedro  de,  demands  Tay 
lor's  withdrawal,  329 

Anderson,  Richard  Clough,  Jr., 
nominated  commissioner  to  Pana 
ma  Congress,  149;  nomination 
confirmed,  150 

Appalachicola  River,  The,  21,  22, 
25,  26,  31 

Arbuthnot,  Alexander,  32,  36 

Archer,  William  S.,  opposition  to 
Texas  treaty,  308,  309 ;  his  doc 
trine  adopted  by  Tyler,  309 ;  re 
port  on  Texas  resolution,  322,  323 

Arista,  Mariana,  notifies  Taylor  of 
beginning  of  hostilities,  329 

Arkansas,  Commonwealth  of,  ad 
mitted,  290;  vote  on  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill,  399 

Arkansas,  Territory  of,  88 
!  Arkansas  River,  the,  33 
I  Army  of  the  United  States,  legisla 
tion  upon,  13,  14  ;  troops  in  Flori 
da,   24  ct    seq.    (see    Mexico,   and 
Kansas,  Territory  of);  as  to  South 
Carolina,  230 

Ashburton,  Alexander  Baring,  first 
Baron,  negotiations  with  Webster, 
314 

Ashburton  Treaty,  303 

Asia,  California  the  road  to,  332 

Astor,    John    Jacob,   understanding 

with  the  Government,  313 
|  Astoria,  founded,  312,  313 

Atchison,  Missouri,  place  of  publica 
tion  of  Squatter  Sovereign,  411 

Atchison,  David  R.,  criticism  of  or 
ganization  of  Nebraska  Territory, 
382;  his  record  and  influence,  412, 
413;  on  the  Wakarusa,  429; 
agrees  with  Robinson,  430  ;  causes 
Missourians  to  withdraw,  431 ;  re 
pudiates  the  sacking  of  Lawrenee, 
438;  in  command  at  Bull  Creek, 
445 

Austin,  Moses,  secures  Texan  grant 
from  Mexico,  291 

Austin,  Stephen  Fuller,  colonizes 
grant  in  Texas,  291 

Austria,  in  Holy  Alliance,  123 


BADGER,  GEORGE  EDMUND,  con 
tention  as  to  Chase's  amendment, 
394  ;  offers  amendment,  395 

Baldwin,  John,  claims  site  of  Law 
rence,  415 

Baltimore,   Maryland,    petition   for 


INDEX 


505 


abolition,  252  ;  Hamlet  case,  367  ; 
conventions  of  1852,  376 

Baltimore  &    Ohio  railroad,  system 
bfgun,  169 

Bank  of  the  United  States,  bill  for  its 
creation,  3;  Calhoun's  argument, 
4,  5,  6  ;  Clay's  early  view,  4  ;  Web 
ster's  objections,  6  ;  Clay's  sup 
port,  6,  7  ;  modified  bill  passed  by 
House,  7,  8  ;  attitude  of  Barbour, 
Bibb,  Taylor,  Wells,  8  ;  passed  by 
Senate,  8  ;  bill  of  181(5  a  Southern 
and  national  measure,  8, 14  ;  bank 
bill  under  comparison,  15,  16 ;  | 
Jackson's  message  of  1829,  190 ;  i 
later  interpretations  of  Jackson's  j 
attack,  191,  192  ;  the  troubles  in  ! 
New  Hampshire,  191  ;  the  opposi-  | 
tion  of  principle,  192,  193 ;  origin  | 
of  opposition  to  ''money  power,"  j 
193,  194;  origin  of  "State's! 
rights  "  opposition  to  Bank,  194  ; 
tax  on  branches  in  Ohio  and  Mary 
land,  194 ;  the  results,  195  ;  rela 
tion  to  u  relief  party "  in  Ken 
tucky,  195,  196  ;  Be  i)  ton' s  attack, 
196;  his  resolution  defeated,  196 ; 
attitude  of  Benton,  197 ;  and  of 
Jackson,  197,  198;  Bank  support 
ed  by  committees,  198  ;  Jackson's 
message  of  December,  1830,  198, 
199 ;  relation  of  question  to  sla 
very,  198  ;  relation  to  politics,  198  ; 
Jackson's  second  attack,  198,  199  ; 
Benton's  resolution  of  1831,  199, 
200 ;  Jackson's  message  of  1831, 
200  ;  the  Bank  question  before  the 
people,  200,  201 ;  advice  of  Clay 
and  Webster,  201  ;  petition  for  re- 
charter,  201 ;  relation  of  Bank 
question  to  question  of  Jackson's 
election,  201 ;  action  by  the  Sen 
ate,  201,  202 ;  Clayton  committee 
report  in  House,  202;  McDuffie's 
report  on  Bank,  202 ;  House  passes 
the  Senate  bill,  202  ;  veto  by  Jack 
son,  202  ;  analysis  of  his  message, 
202-206;  interpretation  of  the 
message,  206-209;  the  principles 
of  Jackson  ratified  by  the  people, 
209  ;  effect  on  Jackson's  views  of 
election  on  Bank  issue,  279 ;  con 
trol  of  deposits,  279  ;  removal  of 
McLane  and  Duane,  280  ;  deposits 
suspended  by  Taney,  280  ;  Taney's 
contention,  280,  281  ;  Senate's  reso 
lutions  of  censure,  281  ;  attitude  of 


Benton,  281  ;  Jackson  successful 
in  all  points,  282  ;  result  of  re 
moval  of  deposits,  283 ;  enforce 
ment  and  effect  of  Act  of  June  23, 
283,  284;  Bank  bills  vetoed  by 
Tyler,  286 

Barbour,  James,  supports  bank  bill, 
8;  proposes  union  of  Maine  and 
Missouri  bills,  82 ;  position  on 
Maine-Missouri  bill,  83 ;  on  con 
ference  committee,  88 ;  letter  to 
Troup,  212,  213  ;  controversy  with 
Troup,  213 

Barbour.  Philip  Pendleton,  in  Mis 
souri  bill  debate,  70;  opposes  tariff 
bill  of  1824,  113,  114 

Beaufort,  South  Carolina,  instruc 
tions  to  collector,  230 

Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  opposes  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  368 

Behring's  Strait,  123 

Belgium,  recognizes  Texan  indepen 
dence,  304 

Bell,  John,  report  on  President's 
powers,  235  ;  proposition  as  to  Cal 
ifornia  and  New  Mexico,  359  ;  its 
reference,  359,  360  ;  on  Committee 
of  Thirteen,  360  ;  attitude  to  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill  and  to  Douglas's 
amendment,  393 ;  speech  against 
the  bill,  396,  397 ;  vote  on  the  bill, 
399 

Bell,  P.  H.,  extends  jurisdiction  of 
Texas,  362,  363 

Benton,  Thomas  Hart,  attacks  the 
Bank,  196 ;  resolution  defeated, 
196  ;  becomes  Jackson's  lieutenant, 
197 ;  resolution  against  the  Bank, 
199 ;  his  resolution  not  accepted, 

200  ;  attack  on  practices  of  Bank, 

201  ;  opinion  on  use  of  Government 
deposits  by  the  Bank,  205  ;  defends 
Jackson  against  censure  of  Senate, 
281  ;    criticism   of    Texas    treaty, 
308 ;   changes  vote,   347 ;    opposi 
tion  to  Foote's  motion,  360 ;  offers 
to  cudgel  Foote,  360 

Berrien,  John  McPherfcon,  opinion 
of  Indian  agreement  of  1826,  214  ; 
report  on  Calhoun's  proposition, 
349,  350  ;  views  on  slavery  in  Mexi 
can  acquisition,  351,  352;  on  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360 

Bibb,  William  Wyatt,  supports  bank 
bill,  8 

Biddle,  Nicholas,  beginning  of  bank 


506 


INDEX 


trouble,  191 ;  management  of 
bank,  195 

Birney,  James  G.,  effect  of  Clay's 
Alabama  letter,  820 

Bishop  of  London,  44 

Black  Jack,  Brown  captures  Pate 
at,  441 

Blair,  Montgomery,  letter  to  Welles 
on  Seward,  387,  388 

Blood,  James,  at  Kansas  City,  and 
at  site  of  Lawrence,  414  ;  in  "  Free- 
State  "  directory,  443 

Bloomfield,  Joseph,  voting,  73 

Blow,  Taylor,  connection  with  Dred 
Scott  case,  453 

41  Blue  Lodges,"  in  Missouri,  419 

Body  of  Liberties,  Massachusetts,  41 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  relation  to 
slavery  in  Louisiana,  54,  55  ;  com 
mercial  system,  123 ;  relation  to 
Holy  Alliance,  123 

Boon,  Ratliff,  in  House  proceedings, 
254 

Boston,  Massachusetts,  beginning  of 
Abolition,  246  ;  meetings  on  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  367 ;  the  Crafts 
case,  368  ;  the  Shadrach  case,  370  ; 
the  Sims  case,  372,  373  ;  Kansas 
emigrants  departing,  414 

Boston  and  Albany  railroad,  survey 
begun, 169 

Branscomb,  Charles  H.,  goes  to 
Kansas,  413,  414;  at  the  site  of 
Lawrence,  414 ;  buys  claim  of 
Stearns,  415 

Branson,  Jacob,  threatens  Buckley, 
428  ;  arrested  by  Sheriff  Jones,  428; 
rescued  by  ''Free  State"  men, 
428,  429  ;  charges  as  to  the  rescue, 
429;  effort  to  arrest  participants 
in  rescue,  433 

Bright,  Jesse  D.,  motion  as  to  Ter 
ritorial  governments,  346;  on  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360 

Brooks,  Preston  Smith,  assault  upon 
Snmner,  439,  440  ;  effect  of  assault 
modified  by  Pottawattomie  mas 
sacre,  44£ 

Brown  vs.  Maryland  [12  Wheaton, 
419],  195,  198 

Brown,  John,  appears  at  Lawrence, 
431  ;  the  Pottawattomie  massacre, 
440 ;  the  massacre  characterized, 
441 ;  captures  Pate  at  Black  Jack, 
441  ;  dispersal  of  the  gang  and 
disappearance  of  Brown,  442;  effect 


of  massacre,  442  ;  his  work  charac 
terized,  473,  474 

Brown,  Mary,  arrest  of  Hamlet,  367 

Brown,  R.  P.,  organizes  company  of 
u  Free-state  "  men,  426  ;  captured 
and  murdered,  426 

Buchanan,  James,  position  upon 
tariff  bill  of  1827,  158,  159  ;  atti 
tude  to  fugitive  slave  law,  368  ; 
candidate  for  presidential  nomina 
tion,  876 ;  the  Ostend  manifesto, 
408 ;  relation  of  his  election  to 
events  in  Kansas,  447 ;  inaugural 
address  quoted,  447 ;  charge  as  to 
improper  official  conduct,  458  ;  ap 
points  Walker  and  Stanton  to 
office  in  Kansas,  461  ;  special  mes 
sage  of  February  2,  1858,  469 

Buckley, ,  secures  peace  warrant 

against  Branson,  428 

Buenos  Ayres,  30 

Buffalo,  New  York,  Free-soil  con 
vention,  347 

Buford,  Jefferson,  repudiates  sack 
ing  of  Lawrence,  438 

Bull  Creek,  Kansas,  Misspurians  en 
camped  on,  445  ;  skirmish  at,  445 

BurriJl,  James,  Jr.,  position  on 
Maine- Missouri  bill,  83 

Burt,  Armistead,  moves  amendment 
to  Douglas's  bill,  341 

Bushnell,  Horace,  member  of  Emi 
grant  Aid  Society,  409 

Bustamente,  Anastasio,  decree  on 
immigration,  291 

Butler,  Andrew  Pickens,  contention 
as  to  fugitive  slave  law,  371;  minor 
ity  report  on  president's  powers, 
372  ;  in  debate  on  Foote's  resolu 
tions,  374 ;  attacked  by  Sumner, 
439 

CABOT,  SAMUEL,  member  of  Emi 
grant  Aid  Society,  409 

Calhoun,  John  Caldwell,  2 ;  commit 
tee  service,  3  ;  argument  for  the 
bank,  4-6  ;  chief  author  of  bank 
bill,  8;  speech  on  tariff  bill,  10- 
12;  on  internal  improvements,  14- 
16;  views  rejected  by  Madison, 
17  ;  relation  to  Jackson,  34,  35 ; 
effect  of  Seminole  War,  38  ;  as  to 
relation  between  protection  and 
slavery,  109 ;  bill  for  internal  im 
provements  vetoed,  1817,  116,  117  ; 
qualifications  as  presidential  can 
didate  in  1824, 133, 134 ;  as  to  vice- 


INDEX 


507 


presidency,  138  ;  elected  vice-presi 
dent,  142,  143  ;  relation  to  admin 
istration,  143  ;  relation  to  Adams's 
administration,    144,   146;   elected 
vice-president,  163,  164;    political 
scientist  of  slavery,  173  ;  publishes  ! 
"South       Carolina     Exposition,"! 
u  Address  on  Relation    of    States  j 
and    Federal   Government,"    and  i 
"Address  to  the  People  of  South  j 
Carolina,"  179  ;  his  argument,  180,  j 
181;   his  doctrine  of  nullification,  | 
189  ;  relation  to  Jackson  and  Semi-  | 
nole  War,  220  ;  the  Forsyth  letter, 
220  ;  hostility  of  Jackson  and  Cal- 
houn,  220,  221  ;  his  letter  to  Gov 
ernor  Hamilton,  221  ;  his  theory  of 
nullification  reproduced,  223 ;    re 
signs  vice-presidency  and  becomes 
Senator,  224  ;  opinion  on  the  posi 
tion  of  South  Carolina,  226,  227 ; 
statement  in  Senate  as  to   South  j 
Carolina's  acts.  232,  233 ;  opinion  I 
of  the  "  Force  Bill,"  234  ;  attitude  j 
to  Clay's  compromise  tariff,  236  ;  ! 
attitude    to  the   Wilkins    "Force  ; 
Bill,"  236  ;  argument  answered  by  j 
Webster,  237 ;    attitude  to  Clay's  i 
bill,    237  ;    motive   in    course    on  j 
nullification,  238  ;  restatement  of  | 
Jefferson's  principles,  239 ;  opinion  I 
of    slavery  cited,    253;  antedated  j 
by  Hammond,  255  ;  contention  as  i 
to  petitions,  264  ;  view  of  slavery,  i 
265-268  ;  resolutions  of  December  j 
27,  1837.  269;   fallacy  of  his  posi-  ! 
tion,    270;    makes   committee   re-; 
port,  with  bills,  on  use  of  mails,  [ 
273,  274  ;    his  plan  defeated,  274  ; 
views  on  recognition  of  Texas,  295, 
296    view  on  annexation  of  Texas, 

301  his  views  expressed  by  Wise,  j 

302  again  Secretary  of  S  bate,  307  ;  I 
notifies  Texas  of  proposal  to  move 
forces,  307  ;  view  of  constitutional 
position   of    Texas,    308  ;     adopts 
idea  of  Archer  as  to  annexation, 
309 ;    views  as  to  method  of  an 
nexation,  321 ;  characterization  of 
his  views  on  annexation,  323,  324  ; 
attitude    to    Mexican    War,    330 ; 
views  as  to  slavery  in  Territories, 
344,  345  ;  his  last  speech,  358  ;  his 
death,  360  ;  views  on  fugitive  slave 
laws,  367 

California,    as   to   Congress   of  Ve 
rona,  124 ;   occupied    by   Kearny, 


332  ;  importance  of  its  occupation, 
332 ;  importance  of   Buena,  Vista, 

333  ;  about  to  be  transferred,  334  ; 
acquisition  in  view,  337 ;  in  nego 
tiations,  337  (see  Upper  California); 
Folk's  message  of  July  6,   1848, 

345,  346  ;  motions  of  Bright   and 
Clayton,    346;    the    Clayton    bill, 

346,  347  ;  Folk's  message   of  De 
cember,  1848,  348 ;  gold  and  silver 
discoveries,    348 ;  Douglas's     bill, 
349;  Smith's   bill,  349;    Berrien's 
report,  349,  350 ;  new  bill  by  Doug-   V 
las,  350  ;  motion  by  Walker,  350, 
351  ;  proceedings  in  Congress,  351 ; 
views    of    Berrien    and   Webster, 
351,    352;  failure   of   Congress   to 
act,  352  ;  effect  of  discoveries,  352, 
353 ;  plan  of  Taylor,  353  ;  the  Mon 
terey    Convention,    353;    Taylor's 
message  of  December  4,  1849",  353, 
354  ;  Foote's  bill,  354  ;  Clay's  plan, 
355,  356;  objections  of  Southern 
ers,  356  ;  attitude  of  abolitionists, 
357 ;     application    for    admission, 
357  ;  consideration  begun,  357,  358 ; 
Calhoun's  last  speech,  358 ;  Web 
ster's   Seventh   of   March   speech, 
359 ;    Bell's  proposition,    359  ;   re 
port  of  Committee  on  Territories, 
360  ;  Committee  of  Thirteen,  360  ; 
Clay's  report,  360-362  ;  passage  of 
bill  for  admission,  363,  364 ;   vote 
on    Kansas-Nebraska    bill,     399; 
Robinson    in,    413;    Sutter    land 
troubles,    413 ;    Robinson's    expe 
rience  in,  applied  to  Kansas,  421, 
422 

Cambreleng,  Churchill  C.,  opposes 
tariff  bill  of  1824,  113 

Canada,  21,  370,  374 

Canning,  George,  proposal  to  Rush, 
125  ;  declaration  to  Polignac,  125 

Cape  Breton,  21 

Capulets,  tomb  of  the,  351 

Cass,  Lewis,  opposes  Upham's 
amendment,  336 ;  viev^s  on  rela 
tion  of  slavery  and  Mexican  War, 
338 ;  Presidential  nominee,  345  ; 
letter  to  Nicholson,  345  ;  on  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360 ;  attitude 
to  fugitive  slave  law,  368;  can 
didate  for  Presidential  nomination, 
376  ;  attitude  to  Chase  and  Doug 
las,  392 

Castle  Pinckney,  becomes  seat  of 
custom-house  for  Charleston  dis- 


508 


INDEX 


trict,    230;    Congress  notified    of 
change,  232 

Catron,  John,  opinion  on  Dred  Scott 
case,  453 

Cerro  Gordo,  battle  of,  333 

Channing,  William  Ellery,  opposi 
tion  to  fugitive  slave  law,  373 

Chapultepec,  battle  of,  338 

Charleston,  South  Carolina,  Govern 
ment  in  control  of  anti-nullifiers, 
181 ;  nullifiers  elect  mayor,  182 ; 
test  of  tariff  law,  182;  Scott  or 
dered  to,  330  ;  instructions  to  col 
lectors,  230 ;  removal  of  custom 
house,  230 ;  Congress  notified, 
232  ;  post-office  robbed,  271 ;  com 
mittee  of  public  safety  elected, 
271 ;  postmaster  communicates 
with  New  1  ork  postmaster,  271  ; 
the  position  of  Postmaster- General 
Kendall,  271,  272 

Chase,  Salmon  Portland,  contention 
as  to  fugitive  slave  law,  371  ;  signs 
National  Era  address,  38'.) ;  moves 
amendment    to    Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  391;  speech  in  Senate,  391 
proposes  further  amendment,  394 
contention   with   Pratt,  3.)4,  395 
proposes  third    amendment,    395, 
.•''96 ;  proposes  fourth  amendment, 
396  ;     vote    on    Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  399;  effect  of  National  Era 
address,  400 

Chattahoochee  River,  the,  211,  214 

Cheever,  George  Burrell,  opposes  fu 
gitive  slave  law,  368 

Cherokee  Nation  vs.  Georgia  [5  Pe 
ters,  1],  218 

Cherokees,  brought  under  criminal 
jurisdiction  of  Georgia,  215;  ap 
peal  to  President,  215,  216  ;  Jack 
son's  reply,  216  ;  Cherokees  refuse 
offers  for  cession  of  claims,  216 ; 
the  question  in  Jackson's  message 
of  1829,  216,  217;  different  views 
of  Indian  land  titles,  217,  218; 
Cherokee  lands  incorporated  by 
Commonwealth  of  Georgia,  218 ; 
the  Cherokee  nation  case,  218;  the 
case  of  Worcester  against  Georgia, 
218,  219 

Cherubusco,  battle  of,  334 

Cheves,  Langdon,  management  of 
bank, 195 

Chihuahua,  captured  by  Doniphan, 


Chili,  treaty  of  1S23  with  Columbia, 

Chillicothe,  0.,  bank  trouble,  195 

Chinn,  Joseph  YV.,  resents  Dickson's 
attack,  254 

Choate,  Rufus,  attitude  to  fugitive 
slave  law,  368 

Christian  baptism,  relation  to  sla 
very,  44 

Clavk,  George  Rogers,  sent  out  by 
Jefferson,  312 

Clay,  Henry,  views  on  the  bank  in 
1812,  4  ;  Speaker  of  House,  6  ; 
support  of  bank  bill,  6,  7 ;  on 
tariff  bill,  10  ;  relation  to  Jackson, 
31,  35 ;  opinion  of  treaty  with 
Spain,  36,  38 ;  suggests  union  of 
Maine  and  Missouri  bills,  77  ;  plan 
of  Clay,  100  ;  report  of  Committee 
of  Thirteen,  100,  101  ;  first  plan 
defeated,  101  ;  conference  com- 
niiitee  and  its  report  on  Missouri, 
101,  102;  plan  accepted,  102,  103; 
supports  tariff  bill  of  1824,  112, 
113 ;  opposed  by  Barbour,  Cam- 
breleng  and  Webster,  113,  114  ;  ef 
forts  with  reference  to  "Monroe 
Doctrine,"  128  ;  qualifications  as 
presidential  candidate  in  1824, 
134-136;  electoral  vote  of  1824, 
137;  in  control  of  situation,  140, 
141  ;  supports  Adams,  141  ;  the 
Kremer  charge,  141 ;  offer  of 
secretaryship  of  state,  142,  143 ; 
opposition  threatened,  142,  143; 
Clay  accepts  office,  143 ;  no  proof 
of  corruption,  143  ;  opposition  in 
Senate  to  his  appointment,  144 ; 
approached  by  ministers  of  Mexico 
and  Columbia,  147  ;  negotiations, 
148,  149;  negotiations  with  Czar 
of  Russia  and  with  Spanish- 
American  colonies,  1 52,  153 ;  his 
"  American  System  "  anticipated 
by  Jackson,  172;  resolution  on 
tariff,  186  ;  speech  on  the  "  Ameri 
can  System,"  187 ;  bill  reported 
and  tabled,  188;  his  ideas  used,  188; 
nominated  for  presidency  in  1831, 
201  ;  advice  to  Bank  party,  201  ; 


passed  by  both  Houses,  237,  238  ; 
signed  by  President,  238  ;  motive 
in  course  on  nullification,  238 ; 
opinion  of  Jacksonian  principles, 


INDEX 


509 


240 ;  criticises  Calhoun's  bill  as  to 
use  of  mails,  274 ;  his  followers 
called  Whigs,  282;  dropped  by 
Whigs,  286;  reports  resolution  on 
Texas,  295 ;  nominated  for  presi 
dency,  309  ;  letter  of  April,  310 ; 
election  an  apparent  certainty,  319; 
demands  of  abolitionists,  319;  the 
National  Intelligencer  letter,  319, 
320 ;  effect  of  the  Alabama  letter, 
320;  presidential  election  of  1844, 
320 ;  the  Alabama  letter,  329  ;  plan 
as  to  California,  New  Mexico  and 
Texas,  355,  356 ;  objections  of 
Southerners,  356,  357 ;  agrees  to 
Douglas's  motion,  357 ;  relations 
with  Foote,  357,  358 ;  debate  on 
Clay's  resolutions,  358,  359  ;  their 
reference,  360 ;  chairman  of  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360  ;  Clay's  re 
port,  360-362  ;  results  of  debates, 
362 ;  passage  of  bills  separately, 
363,  364;  attitude  to  fugitive  slave 
law,  368 ;  motion  on  Shadrach  { 
case,  370 ;  motion  on  .President's 
message,  371 ;  death,  377 

Clayton,  John  Middleton,  secures 
appointment  of  committee  on 
Bank,  202  ;  makes  committee  re 
port  against  Bank,  202  ;  motion  as 
to  Territorial  government,  346 ; 
reports  bill,  346,  347;  not  voting  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  398,  399 

Clemens,  Jeremiah,  in  debate  on 
Foote's  resolutions,  374,  375 

Clinton,  De  Witt,  qualifications  as 
presidential  candidate  in  1824,  132 

Coahuila-Texas,  a  province  and  Com 
mon  wealth  of  Mexico,  291  ;  local 
government,  291  ;  resistance  to 
Santa  Anna,  292;  Texans  in  con 
trol,  292,  293  ;  war  begun  by  Mex 
icans,  293 ;  declaration  of  inde 
pendence,  293.  8ee  Texas 

Cobb,  Thomas  A.,  relation  to  Jack 
son,  34,  35 

Coleman,  L.  H.,  letter  from  Jackson, 
138 

Coleman,  P.  N.,  murders  Dow,  428 

Columbia,  treaties  with  Chili,  Mex 
ico,  Peru,  and  Central  America, 
147 

Colorado  River,  291 

Columbia,  South  Carolina,  conven 
tion  of  1827,  159,  160 

Columbia   River,  123 ;    sources  dis-  ! 
covered,  312,  314,  316, 318,  324,  325  I 


Committee  on  Commerce  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  185 

Committee  on  District  of  Columbia 
of  House  of  Representatives,  252, 
253,  254,  257 

Committee  on  the  District  of  Colum 
bia  of  the  Senate,  253 

Committee  on  Finance  of  the  Seriate, 
198,  199 

Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  321 

Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of 
the  Senate,  150,  295,  308,  322 

Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  232,  235, 
369 

Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the 
Senate,  82,  83,  84,  87,  232,  233,  341, 
343,  349,  363,  371,  372 

Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  110, 112, 
158,  160,  172,  174, 175.  184, 185 

Committee  on  Manufactures  of  the 
Senate,  188 

Committee  on  Territories  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  340,  382, 
400,  401 

Committee  on  Territories  of  the  Sen 
ate,  349,  363,  382,  401 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  9, 
10,  110,  172,  174,  1S5,  198,  231,  351 

Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  in 
Fillmore's  message,  368,  369 ;  in 
Fillmore's  message  of  December  2, 
1851,  374;  memorials  on  finality, 

375  ;  Democratic  platform  of  1852, 

376  ;  Whig  platform  of  1852,  376 ; 
unity  of   Whig  party   imperilled, 
376,  377  ;  effect  of  election  of  1852, 

377  ;  situation  in  December,  1852, 
381  ;  the  Howe-Giddings  colloquy, 
381 ,  382 ;  interpretation  of  the  com 
promise,  38^  ;   the  Douglas  report 
on  Nebraska,  383-387  ;  dictum  of 
the  committee,  387  ;  claim  of  Dix- 
on,   388;    as   to   Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  389 ;  dictum  of  Douglas,  390 ; 
the  amendment  of  Chase,  391  ;  the 
amendment  of  Douglas,  392  ;  views 
of  Everett,  392,   o9:J,  (see  Kansas, 
Territory  of,  and  Nebraska,   Ter 
ritory  of) ;  effect  of  acquiescence, 
403 

Concord,  New  Hampshire,  191 
Confederation  of  Spanish- American 
States,   plan  initiated,   147;  pro- 


510 


INDEX 


posed  congress   and  relations    of 
United  States,  147  et  seq. 

Congress  of  the  Confederation,  lack 
of  power  over  slavery,  48 ;  passed 
Ordinance  of  1787,  48 ;  power  in 
the  case,  49 

Congress,  Continental,  forbids  im 
portation  of  slaves,  48 

Congress  of  the  United  States,  Acts 
of  the  Fourteenth,  1,  2 ;  Congress 
of  1801  and  1815,  3;  power  over 
Bank,  4,  5  ;  early  action  on  tariff,  8 ; 
meeting  in  December,  1815,  9;  vote 
as  to  tariff,  9 ;  acts  of  the  Four 
teenth,  13-14 ;  discussion  of  its 
powers  by  Calhoun,  13,  14  ;  powers  j 
discussed  by  Monroe,  15 ;  pay  of  [ 
members,  16 ;  passage  of  internal  j 
improvements  bill,  10 ;  acts  as  to  j 
Florida,  34,  25  ;  acts  of  1811  as  to  | 
Florida,  30 ;  limitation  as  to  sla 
very,  50  ;  abolition  of  slave  trade, 
51 ;  division  of  Louisiana  territory, 
55,  56  ;  power  over  Territories,  63  ; 
power  to  erect  Commonwealths, 
64  ;  attitude  to  slavery,  65  ;  debate 
on  powers  of  Congress,  67  et  seq. ; 
annals  of,  74  ;  powers  discussed  by 
Taylor,  79,  80,  and  by  Holmes,  80, 
81,  and  by  McLane,  81,  83  ;  Pinck- 
ney's  argument  on  powers  of,  84- 
87  ;  conference  committee  on  Mis 
souri,  88,  89  ;  interpretation  of  Act  I 
of  Congress,  89  ;  significance  of  the 
Compromise,  90-95 ;  powers  con 
sidered  by  Lowndes,  96 ;  Sergeant 
on  power  of  creating  Common 
wealths,  96,  97  ;  course  of  Congress 
considered,  97,  9S  ;  oath  of 
members,  98;  second  conference 
committee  on  Missouri,  101-103; 
significance  of  the  compromise,  | 
104 ;  doctrine  of  its  control  of  I 
commerce,  1 10 ;  conference  com 
mittee  on  tariff,  114,  115;  early 
practice  as  to  internal  improve 
ments,  116,  117;  vote  on  internal 
improvements  bill  of  1833,  118; 
Monroe  on  the  powers  of,  130, 131 ; 
power  over  expenditures,  131 ;  act 
of  April  30,  1821,  133;  inaction 
upon  "Monroe  Doctrine,"  138; 
Calhoun  a  member  of,  1 33 ;  joint 
session  for  count  of  electoral  votes, 
141,  143  ;  as  to  power  over  roads, 
155  ;  Act  of  April  30,  1834,  155, 
156 ;  memorials  to,  158 ;  attitude 


of  South  Carolina  to,  159  et  seq.; 
passes  Maysville  Road  bill,  167; 
appropriations  for  internal  im 
provements,  169  ;  as  to  powers  of, 
170 ;  attitude  to  tariff,  178  ;  Cal- 
houn's  attitude  to.  179;  control  of 
courts  by,  180 ;  President's  mes 
sage  before,  184;  conference  com 
mittee  on  tariff,  188;  attitude  to 
the  planters,  189;  decision  on  Bank 
Act  of,  195;  relation  to  President 
as  to  legislation,  306,  207 ;  as  a 
nominating  body,  208 ;  failure  to 
override  Jackson's  veto,  209;  in 
action  as  to  Indian  problem,  215 ; 
Jackson's  message  to,  216 ;  ten 
years'  struggle  of  South  in,  221  ,  its 
acts  nullified,  232  ;  Jackson's  mes 
sages  on  South  Carolina,  231,  232  ; 
abolition  petitions  to,  251,  252 ; 
abolition  petitions  before,  253 ; 
recommendations  of  Jackson,  273, 
273;  argument  as  to  power  over 
mails,  273  et  seq.;  conflict  with 
President  over  Bank,  279  et  seq.; 
passage  of  Independent  Treasury 
bill,  2S5,  286;  erection  of  new 
Commonwealths,  390 ;  President's 
message  on  Texas,  398  ;  action  of 
Congress,  298-300;  effect  of  its 
action,  300 ;  address  of  certain 
Whig  members,  303 ;  message  of 
Tyler  to,  305 ;  affairs  of  Texas, 
306  et  seq.  ;  Tyler's  message  of  De 
cember,  1844,  330,  321;  compe 
tency  as  to  matters  of  treaty,  323  ; 
Polk  s  message  on  Oregon,  324 ; 
action  as  to  Oregon,  325,  336 ; 
power  over  Texan  boundary,  328 ; 
Act  as  to  Corpus  Christi,  329-331 ; 
Polk's  message  on  Mexican  War, 
330 ;  action  on  war,  331  ;  Polk's 
message  to,  August  8,  1846,  334; 
consent  to  acquisition  of  California 
and  New  Mexico,  337  ;  Polk's  mes 
sage  on  Trist,  338 ;  as  to  attitude  to 
Missouri  Compromise,  341  ;  special 
message  on  Oregon,  344 ;  discus 
sion  of  powers  of,  344 ;  Cass  on 
policy  of,  345  ;  special  message  of 
July  6,  1848,  to,  345,  346;  as  to 
power  in  Territories,  347 ;  attitude 
to  slavery,  348 ;  Taylor's  message 
of  December  4,  1849,  353,  354 ;  ac 
tion  on  new  Territories,  353  et  seq.; 
Fillmore's  message  of  August  6, 
1850,  363 ;  completion  of  compro- 


INDEX 


511 


mise  measure,  363,  364  ;  Fillmore's 
message  of  December,  1850,  868 ; 
petitions  on  fugitive  slave  law,  369  ; 
Fillmore's  message  of  December  2, 
1851,  374 ;  Fillmore's  message  of 
December  6,  1852,380;  action  on 
organization  of  Kansas  and  Ne 
braska,  381  et  seq.;  Kansas  elec 
tion  for  delegate  to,  416,  417  ; 
Whitfield  in,  418  ;  as  to  powers  in 
Kansas.  422 ;  memorial  from  Kan 
sas,  426  ;  [Kansas  question  before, 
432  ;  slavery  question  before,  433  ; 
laws  of,  in  Kansas,  464 ;  Presi 
dent's  message  of  February  2,  ]858, 
469 

Connecticut,  Commonwealth  of,  13  ; 
legislation  on  slavery,  48  ;  in  elec 
tion  of  1824,  142 ;  resolution  on 
independence  of  Texas,  290  ;  vote 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Constitution  of  the  Confederation, 
48 ;  relation  to  Ordinance  of  1787, 
48,  49 

Constitution  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  the,  as  to  Bank,  5 ;    as  I 
cited    by  Calhoun,   13  ;    as   inter-  j 
preted  by  Monroe,  17 ;  relative  to  ; 
parties,  17,  18;  slavery  in,  49,  50;  j 
interpreted  with  reference  to  Dft-J 
tional    character   of    slavery,    59 ;  j 
the    control    of    slavery,   62,   65 ;  : 
powers  of  Congress,  63,  64 ;  test  of 
the  Tallmadge   amendment,  66  et 
seq.;  Taylor  as  to  powers  of  Con-  j 
gress,  79 ;  Holmes'  speech,  80,  81 ; 
McLane's  argument,  81,  82  ;  lim 
itations  on  new  Commonwealths, 
85  ;  as  to  restriction  on  Common-  , 
wealths,   89 ;    significance    of    the 
first  Missouri  Compromise,  90-95  ; 
as  cited  by  Lowndes,  97  ;  cited  by 
Sergeant,  97 ;  extent  of  its  protec 
tion,  98,  99  ;  second  Missouri  com 
promise,  102,  103 ;  significance  of 
the  compromise,   104,  106;   as   to 
fourteenth  amendment,  105;  Tay 
lor's  interpretation  of,  119;  Mon 
roe's  interpretation  of,  120,  121; 
development  of  the  particularistic 
interpretation,  122;   as   construed 
by  Adams,  and  Clay,  1 46  ;  as  to  in 
ternational  status  of  slavery,  151  ; 
amendment    proposed,    155;  reac 
tion  as  to  interpretation  of,  156 ; 
as  interpreted  by  Buchanan,  159; 
amendment  suggested  by  Jackson, 


167,  168;  as  interpreted  by  Taylor, 

168,  169;       as     interpreted     by 
McDuffie,  173,  174;  as  interpreted 
by  Calhoun,  178-181  ;   regard  for 
processes  of,  181  ;  as  interpreted  by 
Calhoun,  183  ;  as  to  origin  of  rev 
enue  bill,    188 ;    political  science 
of,  192,  193  ;  decision    as  to  con 
stitutionality  of  Bank  Act,  195; 
as    construed    by    Jackson,    199; 
Jackson  on  operation  of,  205,  206  ; 
effect  of  his  Bank  veto,  207-209  ; 
as  cited*  by  Jackson,  216,  217;  the 
Cherokee  nation  case,  218  ;  case  of 
Worcester  vs.   Georgia,  218,   219; 
powers  conferred  on  President  by, 
220  ;  as  interpreted  in  the  Nullifi 
cation  Ordinance,  222  ;  as  construed 
by  the   nullifiers,    227;    as    inter 
preted  in  Jackson's  proclamation, 
229 ;    as   expounded  by   Calhoun, 
236  ;  as  explained  by  Webster,  237  ; 
effect  of  events  of  1832  and  1833 
on,  238-241  ;  as  to  control  of  civil 
status,  247,  248 ;  attitude  of  Garri 
son  to,  248 ;  guarantees  as  to  right 
of  petition,  255,  256  ;  in  Calhoun's 
argument.    273 ;    provision   as    to 
treaties,  305;    nature  of  war  ac 
cording    to,    306 ;    as    to    treaty- 
making  powers,   307,  308 ;    as  to 
annexation   of   Texas,  321  ;    as  to 
procedure  on  treaties,  324;  as  in 
terpreted    by   Rhett,  342;    as    to 
Oregon  bill,  343 ;  compromises  of, " 
348  ;  as  to  extension  of  its  effect, 
350 ;     amendment     suggested     by 
Calhoun,   358 ;    Webster    on   the, 
359;  effect  of  formation  of,  366; 

t    as  to  fugitive  slaves,  366,  367;  as" 
interpreted  by  Fillmore,  370 ;    as 
interpreted    by    Butler,    372 ;    as 
cited  by  Fillmore,  374 ;  in  Doug 
las's  report,  383,  392 ;  as  viewed  by" 
Everett,  393 ;    in   Chase's  amend 
ment,  394 ;  treason,  as  defined  by, 
427 ;  the  Dred  Scott  case,  449  ~et 
seq. 

Continental  Congress.    See  Congress, 
Continental 

Contreras,  battle  of,  334 

Convention,  Federal  Constitutional, 
of  1787,  attitude  to  slavery,  49,  50 

Convention.     See  Treaty 

Con  way,  M.    F.,  letter  to  Governor 
Reeder.  424 

Cooke,  P.  St.  George,  ordered  to  at- 


512 


INDEX 


tack  Topeka,  445 ;  refuses  to  obey, 
445 

Cooper,  James,  on  committee  of 
Thirteen,  360  ;  not  voting  on  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  398 

Cooper,  Thomas,  speech  at  Colum 
bia,  159;  his  life  and  views,  173; 
his  relation  to  slavery  and  to  Mc- 
Duffie,  173 

Corpus  Christi,  made  port  of  deliv 
ery,  339  ;  advance  of  Taylor,  329 

Cos,  Martin  Perfectos  de,  attacks 
Gonzales,  293 ;  driven  from  Texas, 
294 

Cotton,  relation  to  slavery,  52,  53; 
exportation  reduced,  54 

Crafts,  Ellen,  escape,  368 

Crafts,  William,  escape,  368 

Cramer,  John,  motion  in  House, 
254 

Crane,  A.  C.,  statement  as  to  Dred 
Scott  case,  449, 450 

Crawford,  William  Harris,  relation 
to  Jackson,  34,  35  ;  opinion  of 
treaty  with  Spain,  36  ;  effect  of 
Semiriole  War,  38  ;  qualifications 
as  presidential  candidate  in  1824, 
132,  133,  136,  141  ;  electoral  vote 
of  1824,  137 ;  relation  to  Adams' 
administration,  144-146  ;  relation 
to  Jackson  and  the  Seminole  War, 
220 

Creeks,  the,  26,  29  ;  Council  of  1824, 
212  ;  Indian  Springs  convention, 
212;  its  repudiation,  212;  resist 
ance  to  Georgia,  212;  protest  to 
general  government,  212,  213  ;  con 
troversy  as  to  Creek  lands,  213, 
214  ;  new  agreement  of  1826  as  to 
lands,  214;  agreement  repudiated 
by  Georgia,  214 

"  Crime  against  Kansas,"  the,  deliv 
ered,  439 

Cuba,  in  the  Spanish-American 
troubles,  152-154  ;  the  Osteud  man 
ifesto,  408 

Cumberland  Road,  built,  116 ;  bill  of 
1822,  118;  analysis  of  vote,  118, 
119;  attitude  of  East  and  West, 
119,  120 

Curtis,  Benjamin  Bobbins,  opinion 
on  Dred  Scott  case,  454,  457,  458 

Curtis,  George  Ticknor,  attitude  to 
fugitive  slave  law,  368 ;  in  Shad- 
rach  case,  370 ;  Q^uection  with 
Sims  case,  373 


Gushing,  Caleb,  relation  to  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  401 
Customs  Act,  of  1789,  8  ;  of  1812,  9 

DAGGETT,  DAVID,  voting,  74 

Dallas,  Alexander  James,  presents 
Bank  memorial,  201 ;  on  Senate 
committee,  201 ;  reports  Bank  bill, 
201 

Davis,  Jefferson,  views  as  to  slavery 
in  Territories,  344,  345 ;  moves 
amendment  to  Oregon  bill,  344; 
effect  of  his  action,  345  ;  attitude 
to  Clay's  proposal,  357 ;  views  on 
fugitive  slave  law,  367 ;  contention 
as  to  fugitive  slave  law,  371  ;  rela 
tion  to  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  401, 
402 ;  disapproves  Col.  Sumner's 
course,  443 ;  attitude  to  Kansas 
affairs,  472,  473 

De  Bree,  John,  owner  of  Shadrach, 
370 

Declaration  of  Independence,  the. 
70,  92,  94,  193,  229,  245 

Delaware,  Commonwealth  of,  8  ;  leg 
islation  on  slavery,  48  ;  in  election 
of  1828,  163  ;  vote  on  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill,  399 

Democratic  party,  appearance,  38, 
104  ;  principles,  104  ;  circum 
stances  of  its  appearance,  1 46 ; 
party  nomenclature,  162,  163 ;  de 
mands  of  1828,  163  ;  the  making 
of  its  creed,  165;  divisions  of  the 
party  and  policies  of  each,  1 65 ; 
origin  and  influence,  193,  191; 
radical  development  in  Kentucky, 
195,  196 ;  attack  of  western  ele 
ment  upon  privilege,  196;  Jackson 
becomes  leader,  196,  197 ;  opposes 
Gordon's  proposal  as  to  independ 
ent  treasury,  285  ;  supports  Inde 
pendent  Treasury  Bill  of  1840, 
285 ;  relation  to  the  questions  of 
slavery  and  territorial  extension, 
287,  288  ;  nominates  Polk  for  pres 
idency,  309;  the  platform,  309, 
316 ;  views  of  the  union  of  Texas 
and  Oregon  in  platform,  317 ; 
Thompson's  opinion,  317  ;  charac 
terization  the  work  of  the  Demo 
crats,  317;  platform  of  1844,  318; 
attitude  to  Wilmot  proviso,  338; 
platform  of  1848  as  to  slavery  in 
Territories,  344,  345  ;  the  Clayton 
committee,  346;  election  of  1848, 
348,  349 ;  convention  of  1852,  376 ; 


INDEX 


513 


election  of  1852,  377  ;  controversy 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  391 ;  vote 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399;  at 
titude  of  Pierce  to  New  York  fac 
tions,  403 ;  vote  in  House  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  404,  405; 
meaning  of  the  vote,  405,  406  ;  as 
to  leaders  of  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany,  413  ;  effect  of  Kansas  strug 
gle,  417  ;  relation  to  rise  of  Re 
publican  party,  418  ;  Lane's  effort 
at  organization  in  Kansas,  423 ; 
relation  of  Kansas  affairs  to  na 
tional  party  organization,  430, 
431  ;  effect  on  party  prospects  of 
sacking  of  Lawrence,  438;  as  to 
effect  of  events  in  Kansas,  447  ; 
effect  of  Dred  Scott  decision,  458  ; 
plan  as  to  Democracy  in  Kansas, 
462 

Denver,  John  W.,  appointed  Acting- 
Governor  of  Kansas  Territory, 
467 ;  his  report  to  the  President, 
468,  469 ;  pockets  bill  for  consti 
tutional  convention,  471 

Deseret,  Foote's  bill,  354 

Des  Moines  River,  the,  Falls  of,  66 

De  Witt,  Alexander,  signs  National 
Era  address,  389 

Dickerson,  Mahlon,  reports  tariff  bill 
in  Senate.  188 

Dickinson,  Daniel  Stevens,  on  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360 

Dickson,  John,  presents  abolition 
petitions,  254;  controversy  with 
Chinn,  254 

District  of  Columbia,  adoption  of 
Maryland  laws,  51 ;  exclusive  gov 
ernment  vested  in  central  Govern 
ment,  247,  248  ;  petitions  for  abo 
lition  of  slavery  in,  251,  252;  re 
port  on  slavery  in  District,  253 ; 
disposal  of  Quaker  petitions,  253  ; 
more  petitions  in  House,  254  ;  con 
test  begins,  254;  petitions  presented 
by  Dickson  and  Fairh'eld,  254 ;  the 
Dickson-Chinn  controversy,  254; 
Blade's  motion,  254;  Granger's  in 
timation,  257  ;  the  demand  of  Wise, 
257,  258  (see.  Petition,  Right  of)  ; 
Pinckney  resolutions  quoted,  261  ; 
re-enacted,  2(52  ;  Vermont  petition, 
265,  269  ;  efforb  of  Calhoun  as  to 
slavery  in  the  District,  2(58 ;  recur 
rence  of  the  slavery  question,  355  ; 
Clay's  plan,  356 ;  attitude  of  South 
erners,  357 ;  attitude  of  abolition 


ists,  357 ;  Clay's  report,  362 ;  bill 
passed,  364.  See  Washington, 
D.  C. 

Dixon,  Archibald,  proposes  amend 
ment  to  Nebraska  bill,  387  ;  Blair's 
letter  on  Dixon,  387,  388  ;  attitude 
of  Douglas,  3S8 

Dodge,  Augustus  Caesar,  introduces 
bill  on  Nebraska,  382 

Donaldson,  J.  B.,  proclamation  as  to 
resistance  to  service  of  writs,  4^5 ; 
dealings  with  citizens  of  Lawrence, 
436,  437  ;  appears  with  force  before 
Lawrence,  437 ;  dismisses  posse, 
438  ;  the  sacking  of  Lawrence,  438 

Doniphan,  Alexander  William,  capt 
ures  Chihuahua,  332 

Douglas,  Stephen  Arnold,  attitude 
to  Wilmot  proviso,  338  ;  presents 
bill  on  Oregon  in  House,  340,  341 ; 
presents  bill  in  Senate  on  Oregon, 
343 ;  moves  amendment,  347 ; 
changes  vote,  347;  reports  bill, 

349  ;  Berrien's  adverse  report,  349, 

350  ;  new  bill  on  Territories,  850  ; 
motion  as  to  California,  357  ;  atti 
tude    to  fugitive  slave  law,  3(58 ; 
candidate   for  presidential   nomi 
nation,    376 ;  early   plans   for  or 
ganization  of  territory  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  381  ;  presents  bill  and 
report    on    Nebraska,    382,     383 ; 
consideration    of    report    and   its 
author,  383-387  ;  attitude  to  Dix 
on,  388 ;  presents  new  bill  on  Ne 
braska  and  Kansas,  389  ;  National 
Era  address,  3t9,  390 ;  Douglas's 
reply,  390  ;  charged  with  conspir 
acy,  391  ;  his  principle  as  to  slavery 
in    Territories,    391 ;    amendment 
to  bill,  392 ;  vote  on  his  amend 
ment,     393 ;    debate    on     further 
amendments,    394-397 ;     proposes 
amendment,  395,  39(i ;  final  argu 
ment  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  397, 
398  ;  substance  of  bill  reported  in 
House  bill,  400  ;  Douglas's  bill  in 
House,   401,  403;  effect    of    Dred 
Scott  decision  on  Douglas  Demo 
crats,  458 ;  opposition  to  Buchan 
an,  469,  470 

Douglas  county,  Kansas,  Sheriff 
Jones  of,  428 ;  charge  of  Chief 
Justice  Lecompte,  435 ;  indict 
ment  by  Grand  Jury,  435 

Dow,  C.  M.,  murdered  by  Coleman, 


514 


INDEX 


Downs,  Solomon  W.,  on  committee 
of  Thirteen,  360 

Drayton,  William,  relation  to  nul 
lification,  181 

Dred  Scott  vs.  Sandford  [19  Howard, 
293],  447,449  et  seq. 

Duane,  William  John,  removed  from 
head  of  Treasury  Department,  280 

Dutch  Traders,  at  Jamestown,  40 

Dutch  Henry's  Crossing,  massacre 
at,  440;  the  massacre  character 
ized,  441  ;  and  denounced  by  set 
tlers.  441 ;  effect  of  massacre,  443  ; 
the  work  characterized,  473,  474 

EAST  FLORIDA,  21 

Eaton,  John  Henry,  as  to  Bank  trou 
ble,  192 

Easton,  Kansas,  election  trouble  at, 
426 

Election,  presidential,  of  1820,  129 ; 
of  1824,  130-137  ;  in  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  140-142  ;  of  1828,  163, 
164  ;  of  1832,  189,  190  et  seq.  ;  of 
1836,  283;  of  1840,  286;  of  1844, 
320  ;  of  1848,  349  ;  of  1852,  377  ;  of 
1856,  relation  to  election  of  Whit- 
field  in  Kansas,  417  ;  indications  as 
to  election  of  1856,  440;  of  1856,  as 
related  to  affairs  in  Kansas,  446,  447 

Electoral  Colleges,  50 

Ellis,  Powhatan,  ordered  to  make 
final  demand  on  Mexican  Govern 
ment,  299 

El  Paso,  361 

Emancipation,  early  schemes  for, 
243,  245 

Embargo,  of  1807,  5t 

Emerson,  Dr.,  owner  of  Dred  Scott, 
450 ;  his  will,  450 

Emerson,  Irene,  owner  of  Dred 
Scott,  450  ;  sells  him  to  Sandford, 
451 

Emigrant  Aid  Company,  misrepre 
sentations  as  to,  411  ;  conference 
with  Robinson,  413 ;  excitement 
occasioned  in  Missouri,  413  ;  claims 
as  to  its  purpose,  419  ;  indictment 
against  hotel  in  Lawrence,  435 

England,  21,  45,  368 

English,  William  Hayden,  bill  on 
Kansas,  470,  471 

Erie  Canal,  132 

Eustis,  William,  efforts  for  admission 
of  Missouri,  100 

Everett,  Edward,  reply  to  McDuffie, 
176;  speech  on  Kansas-Nebraska 


t 

bill,  892,  393  ;  not  voting  on  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  398     ' 
Ewing,  Thomas,  on  Bank  Committee 
of  Senate,  201 

FAIRFIELD,  JOHN,  presents  abolition 
petition,  254 

Federal  Party,  12,  104;  extinction, 
129  ;  its  errors,  129  ;  effects  of  VVar 
of  1812,  130;  principles  on  which 
it  lost  power,  239 

Field,  Roswell  M.,  connection  with 
DreJ  Scott  case,  449,  452 

Fillmore,  Millard,  becomes  Presi 
dent,  363 ;  message  on  Texas,  360  ; 
message  of  December,  1850,  368, 
369  ;  opposition  of  Giddings,  369 ; 
message  on  Shadrach  case,  370, 
371 ;  report  on  President's  powers, 
372  ;  message  of  December  2,  1851, 
374  ;  contest  in  Whig  Convention 
of  185:3,  376 ;  message  of  December 
6,  1852,  380,  381 

Fitchburg,  Massachusetts,  home  of 
Charles  Robinson,  413 

Flint  River,  22 

Florida,  its  acquisition,  19-38  ;  treaty 
of  Florida  Seminoles,  290 ;  consti 
tution  formed,  290;  admitted  as 
Commonwealth,  290  ;  vote  on  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  390 

Floyd,  John,  message  on  Southamp 
ton  massacre,  249 

Foote,  Henry  Stuart,  bill  for  Terri 
tories,  354 ;  criticises  Clay,  357, 
358 ;  motion  on  Bell's  resolutions, 
359;  accepts  amendment,  360; 
draws  pistol  on  Benton,  360 ;  in 
troduces  finality  resolutions,  374  ; 
passed  by  House  and  rejected  by 
Senate,  375 

"Force  Bill,"  the.  See  Wilkins, 
William 

Foreign  affairs,  relation  to  party  de 
velopment,  122 ;  the  Holy  Alliance, 
123-125;  the  u  Monroe  Doctrine," 
125-128;  significance  of  the  diplo 
matic  questions,  129;  success  of 
Van  Buren,  164.  See  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations 

Forsyth,  John,  letter  as  to  intrigue 
against  Jackson,  220  ;  letter  from 
Morfit,  296,  297 

Fort  Brown,  attempt  at  relief,  329 

Fort  Jackson,  treaty  of,  26,  29 

Fort  Leavenworth,  Robinson  at,  414 ; 


IXDEX 


515 


arrival  of  Governor  Reeder,  416  ; 
Governor  authorized  to  call  troops 
from,  432 ;  Sumner  returns  to, 
443 

Fort  Monroe,  transfer  of  artillery, 
230 

Fort  Moultrie,  transfer  of  artillery, 
230 

Fort  Riley,  Branscomb  at,  414 

Fort  Scott,  81 

Fort  Titus,  Kansas  conflict  at,  444 

Fowltown,  destroyed,  28,  29 

France,  21,  22,  23,  24 ;  abolition  of 
slavery,  54  ;  gets  Louisiana  terri 
tory,  54,  65  ;  in  Holy  Alliance,  123  ; 
relation  to  Congress  of  Verona, 
124  ;  boundary  dispute  with  Spain, 
290 ;  recognizes  Texan  independ 
ence,  304 ;  cedes  Louisiana  to 
United  States,  312,  318,  395.  tiee 
Treaty 

Francis,  Indian  priest,  26 

Franklin,  Kansas,  Jones  goes  to, 
428 ;  Lane  and  Robinson  accom 
pany  Shannon  to,  430,  431  ;  as  to 
treaty  of  August  17,  444 

Free- Soil  party,  Buffalo  convention 
of  1848,  347  ;  nomination  and  plat 
form,  347,  348  ;  nomination  of 
Hale,  377 ;  the  National  Era  ad 
dress,  389  ;  its  effect,  400  ;  vote  in 
House  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 

404,  405 ;    meaning  of    the  vote, 

405,  406 ;  appearance  of  Eli  Thayer, 
408,  409 ;  as  to  leaders  of  Emigrant 
Aid  Company,  413  ;  effect  of  Kan 
sas  struggle,  417;  relation  of  Free- 
soil   party  to  rise   of  Republican 
party,  418;  effect  of  Dred  Scott 
decision,  458 

Fremont,  John  Charles,  effect  of 
events  in  Kansas  on  his  candidacy 
in  1856,  447 

French  Republic,  the,  23 

Fugitive  slave  law,  passed  by  Con 
gress,  51  ;  law  of  1850,  363,  364 
(see  also  Slavery)  ;  law  of  1850 
makes  slavery  a  national  matter, 
366 ;  its  further  effect,  386,  367  ; 
views  of  Calhoun,  Davis,  and 
Rhett,  367  ;  the  Hamlet  case,  367; 
efforts  at  repeal  of  law,  367,  368 ; 
the  Crafts  case,  368  ;  the  "  Under 
ground  "  established,  368  ;  attitude 
of  the  lawyers,  368 ;  Fillmore's 
message  of  December,  1850,  368, 
369  ;  Fillmore's  message,  369 ;  mo 


tion  of  Giddings,  369 ;  petitions 
for  repeal,  369,  370  ;  the  Shadrach 
case,  370  ;  Filimore's  message,  370, 
371 ;  debate  on  Clay's  motion,  371 ; 
report  on  powers  of  President,  371, 
372 ;  the  Sims  case,  372,  373  ;  Bos 
ton  meetings,  373 ;  leaders  of 
opinion,  373;  the  "  Jerry  rescue," 
373,  374;  Fillmore's  message  of 
December  2,  1851,374;  debate  on 
Foote's  finality  resolutions,  374, 
375  ;  the  result,  375  ;  petitions  for 
repeal,  375  ;  Whig  convention  of 
1652,  376  ;  attack  by  Sumner,  377  ; 
effect  of  election  of  1852,  377  ;  va 
rious  policies  as  to  slavery,  377- 
379 

Fuller,  Timothy,  in  Missouri  bill  de 
bate,  68 

"Fundamentals,"  Massachusetts,  41 
Furness,     William   Henry,    opposes 
fugitive  slave  law,  368 

GAINES,  EDMUND  PENDLETON,  in 
Florida,  28,  30,  31 ;  ordered  to 
Georgia,  213;  authorized  to  ad 
vance  into  Texas,  298 

Garland,  James,  reply  to  Slade,  258 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  beginning 
of  abolition,  246  ;  estimate,  246  ; 
the  constitutional  situation,  246- 
248;  attack  on  the  Constitution, 
248 ;  publishes  the  Liberator, 
251  ;  compared  with  moderates, 
251  ;  opposition  to  fugitive  slave 
law,  373 

Geary,  John  AVhite,  appointed  gov 
ernor  of  Kansas  with  authority 
over  troops,  446  ;  at  Lecompton 
and  Lawrence,  446;  enforces 
withdrawal  of  Missourians,  446, 
447  ;  his  resignation,  447 

Geography,  relation  to  political  de 
velopment,  20 

Georgetown,  South  Carolina,  in 
structions  to  collector,  230 

Georgia,  Commonwealth  of,  8,  26, 
27,  28,  38 ;  slavery  prohibited, 
43 ;  conditional  cession  of  west 
ern  lands,  50,  56 ;  attitude  to  in 
ternal  improvements  bill  of  1817, 
118  ;  attitude  to  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1S22,  119;  stock 
held  in  United  States  Bank,  203 ; 
nullification  in  Georgia,  210  ;  con 
ditional  cession  of  lands  of  1802, 
211  ;  the  attempt  to  erect  an  In- 


516 


INDEX 


dian  State,  211  ;  problem  of  land 
titles  in  Georgia,  211,  212;  legislat 
ure  memorializes  for  quieting  of 
Indian  claims,  212 ;  the  Indian 
Springs  convention,  212  ;  its  repu 
diation,  212;  the  attempt  to  sur 
vey  the  lands,  212;  Barbour's  let 
ter  to  Troup,  212,  218  ;  quieting  of 
Indian  titles  by  agreement  of  1826, 
214 ;  Georgia  repudiates  the  agree 
ment,  214  ;  defiance  of  central  Gov 
ernment,  214,  215 ;  President  re 
fers  matter  to  Congress,  215;  Con 
gress  fails  to  act,  21 5  ;  legislature 
extends  criminal  jurisdiction  over 
Cherokees,  215;  Jackson's  opinion 
of  Georgia's  position,  216  ;  obsti 
nacy  of  the  Cherokees,  216;  the 
question  in  Jackson's  message  of 
1829,  216,  217 ;  opinions  of  Indian 
titles,  217  ;  the  solution  in  Geor 
gia,  217,  218  ;  legislature  incorpo 
rates  Cherokee  lands  in  the  Com 
monwealth,  218  ;  the  Cherokee  Na 
tion  case,  218;  the  case  of  Wor 
cester  against  Georgia,  218,  219; 
failure  to  execute  decision,  219, 
220  ;  convention  in,  375  ;  vote  in 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399;  Jack 
son's  Georgians  in  Kansas,  438 

Ghent,  treaty  of,  9,  26 

Gid<  lings,  Joshua  Reed,  denounces 
Fillmore  and  Webster,  309  ;  collo 
quy  with  Howe,  381,  382 

Glascock,  Thomas,  attitude  on  pro 
cedure  as  to  petitions,  259 

Goliad,  atrocities,  293 

Gonzales,  attacked,  293 

Gordon,  William  F.,  proposal  as  to 
independent  treasury,  285 ;  rela 
tion  of  parties  to  its  rejection,  285 

Gorham,  Benjamin,  attitude  to  tariff 
bill  of  1823,  111 ;  reply  to  McDuf- 
fie,  176 

Gorostiza,  Manuel  Eduardo  de,  leaves 
Washington,  299 

Granger,  Francis,  claim  as  to  District 
of  Columbia,  257 

Grasshopper  Falls,  Kansas,  con 
vention  at,  464 

Great  Britain,  treaty  of  1763,  21,  23: 
treaty  of  1 783,  22  ;  war  of  United 
States  with,  24;  treaty  of  1814, 
26  ;  Nicholls's  proposition  to,  27  ; 
Indian  allies  of,  20  ;  relations  with 
United  States  as  to  slaves,  58,  59  ; 
claims  in  North  Pacific,  123 ;  re 


lation  to  Holy  Alliance,  123,  124; 
proposal  as  to  Holy  Alliance,  125  ; 
Canning's  declaration,  125;  diplo 
matic  relations,  287 ;  Ashburton 
Treaty,  303  ;  recognizes  Texan  in 
dependence,  304  ;  as  mediator  be 
tween  Mexico  and  Texas,  304  ;  the 
London  letter  of  British  plans, 
304  ;  claims  to  Oregon,  31 1 ;  Nootka 
Convention,  311,  312  ;  effect  of  war 
with  Spain,  312;  Treaty  of 
Utrecht,  312;  claim  of  United 
States.  312,  313;  treaty  of  1818 
with  United  States,  313 ;  effect  of 
treaty  of  1819  between  United 
States  and  Spain,  313;  agreement 
of  1828  with  United  States,  314 ;  in 
Ashburton -Webster  negotiations, 
314 ;  ignorance  as  to  Oregon,  314, 
315;  the  work  of  Whitman,  315, 
316  ;  Democratic  platform  of  1844, 
316;  negotiations  as  to  Oregon, 
321  ;  statement  of  negotiations  in 
Polk's  first  message,  324  ;  his  rec 
ommendations,  324  ;  action  of  Con 
gress,  April,  1846,  325,  326  ;  treaty 
of  June,  1846,  326  ;  possibility  of 
holding  California,  332  ;  result  of 
treaty  with,  339;  United  States 
minister  to,  408 

Great  lakes,  325 

Greeley,  Horace,  views  on  election 
of  1844,  3:20 

Grimke,  Thomas  Smith,  relation  to 
nullification,  181 

Gdnnell,  Moses  H.,  member  of  Emi 
grant  Aid  Society,  409 

Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  treaty  of,  terms, 
336  ;  ratified  by  Senate,  339 

HALE,  EDWARD  EVERETT,  member 
of  Emigrant  Aid  Society,  409 

Hale,  John  Parker,  moves  amend 
ment  to  Oregon  Bill,  344  ;  effect  of 
his  action,  345  ;  contention  as  to 
fugitive  slave  law,  371 ;  presents  pe 
titions  for  repeal  of  fugitive  slave 
law,  375  ;  nominated  for  presiden 
cy,  377 ;  popular  vote  compared 
with  Van  Buren's  in  1848,  377 

Hamilton,  James,  the  Calhoun  let 
ter,  221  ;  calls  special  meeting  of 
legislature,  221 ;  chairman  of  nulli 
fication  convention,  -21  ;  sends 
ordinance  of  nullification  to  legis 
lature,  224 

Hamlet,  James,  arrest,  367 


INDEX 


Hainlin,  Hannibal,  presents  petition 

in  Senate,  370 
Hammond,  James  Hamilton,  motion 

not  to  receive  abolition  petitions, 

255  ;  wrangle  over  his  two  motions, 
256 

Harrisburg,    Penn.,    convention    of 

1824,  139 
Harrison,   William    Henry,   voting, 

73 ;     nominated    for     presidency, 

256  ;    succeeded,  on  his  death,  by 
Tyler,  286 

Harvey,  James  Madison,  commands 
column  of  "Free-state"  force, 
445 

Hayne,  Robert  Young,  theory  on 
tariff,  114 ;  view  of  slave  labor, 
161  ;  view  repeated  by  McDuffie, 
177;  Cal'.oun  and  the  Webster 
debate,  179;  criticism  of  Clay's 
resolution  on  tariff,  187,  and 
amendment  of  it,  188 ;  on  Bank 
committee  of  Senate,  201 ;  his  in 
augural  as  governor  of  South  Car 
olina,  224 

Hayti,  its  affairs  mentioned  by  Sal- 
azar,  151 ;  consideration  of  its  ex 
ample  in  the  United  States,  152; 
isolated,  154 

Hegel,  Georg  Wilhelm  Friedrich, 
cited  on  human  purpose,  243,  244 

Heister,  William,  presents  abolition 
petition,  253 

Herrera,  Jose'  Joaqtun  de,  refuses  to 
receive  Slid  ell,  328 ;  gives  way  to 
Paredes,  328 

Hill,  Isaac,  in  Bank  trouble,  191 

Hillards,  the,  in  Crafts  case,  308 

Hillis  Hajo,  32 

Himallemico,  32 

Holmes,  John,  voting,  73  ;  presents 
Maine  petition  for  admission,  77; 
reports  bill,  77;  speech  on  Mis 
souri,  80,  81 ;  on  conference  com 
mittee,  88 

Holy  Alliance,  formation,  123;  re 
lation  to  England,  1 24 ;  Congress 
of  Verona,  124  ;  Canning's  declara 
tion  to  Polignac,  125;  the  "Mon 
roe  Doctrine,"  125-128;  relation 
to  Spain's  colonies,  153,  154 

Hoist,  Hermann  Edouard  von,  opin 
ions  reviewed,  27  ;  opinion  of  Jack 
son's  veto  message  considered,  206, 
207 

Holyoke,  Massachusetts,  residence  of 
Branscomb,  413 


Home  Government  [of  England],  as 
to  baptism  of  slaves,  44 

Hopkinson,  Joseph,  committee  ser 
vice,  3 

House  of  Representatives,  of  the 
United  States,  action  on  Madison's 
message,  3  ;  Clay,  Speaker  of,  6 ; 
passage  of  Bank  bill,  7,  8 ;  refer 
ence  of  tariff  matters,  9  ;  debate  on 
tariff,  10-12  ;  passage  of  tariff  bill, 
12 ;  debate  on  internal  improve 
ments,  13,  14  ;  pay  of  members,  16  ; 
passage  of  internal  improvements 
bill,  18  ;  second  passage  of  internal 
improvements  bill,  18;  vote  on 
censure  of  Jackson,  35,  36 ;  rep 
resentation  in,  63  ;  petitions  from 
Missouri,  66 ;  debate  on  the  Tall- 
madge  amendment,  66  et  stq.;  pas 
sage  of  Tallmadge  amendment  and 
Missouri  bill,  73 ;  disagreement 
with  Senate,  74 ;  petition  from 
Maine  referred,  75 ;  Maine  bill 
passed  by  House,  75  ,  Missouri  bill 
and  Taylor's  amendment,  *<8-80  ; 
Holmes's  speech,  80,  81  ;  McLane's 
speech,  81,  82;  Pinkney's  speech 
on  powers  of  Congress,  84-S7 ; 
disagreement  with  Senate,  88 ; 
conference  committee,  88-89 ;  sig 
nificance  of  the  compromise/.KMtf) ; 
Missouri  constitution  considered, 
95,  96;  report  of  Lowndes,  96; 
speech  of  Sergeant,  96,  97 ;  con 
sideration  of  the  question,  97,  98  ; 
defeat  of  the  Lowndes  bill,  99; 
tables  Senate  bill,  99  ;  Clay's  pro 
posals,  100;  report  of  committee 
of  thirteen,  100,  101 ;  defeat  of  the 
bill  and  amendment,  101  ;  second 
conference  committee,  101,  103; 
plan  to  limit  membership,  109; 
reference  of  Monroe's  recommen 
dations,  110  ;  tariff  bill  of  1823,  110, 
111  ;  tariff  bill  of  1824,  112;  Clay's 
argument,  112,  113  ;  replies  to  Clay, 
113,  114  ;  conclusion  in  conference 
committee,  114,  115;  early  votes 
on  internal  improvements,  117, 
117;  vote  on  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1822,  118,  119,  120; 
Monroe's  letter  on  internal  im 
provements,  120,  121 ;  vote  on  ve 
toed  bill,  121;  Clay,  Speaker  of, 
134;  election  of  President  in,  140- 
142 ;  memorials  on  tariff,  158  ;  tar 
iff  bill  passed,  159 ;  tariff  bill  re- 


518 


INDEX 


ported,  160 ;    vote  on    tariff  bill, 
163 ;    vote    on    vetoed     Maysville 
road  bill,  168 ;  question  as  to  ref 
erence  of  President's  message,  172- 
174;  tariff  bill  before  House,  174, 
175  ;  McDuffie's  argument,  175,176, 
177  ;  refe^nce  of  President's  mes 
sage,  184, 185  ;  tariff  bill  before,  185, 
186  ;  tariff'  bill  passed,  180 ;  refusal 
to  concur  with  Senate,  188  ;  confer 
ence  committee,  188 ;  report  on  the 
Bank,  198  ;  relation  of  members  of 
constituencies,     200 ;    reports     on 
Bank,    202 ;     bill     for    re-charter 
passed,  202  ;  Jackson   on  duty  of 
members,    206 ;   early    control    of 
presidential   elections,  208  ;  action  j 
on   President's  message,  231,  232;  I 
bill  reported  on  President's  powers,  | 
235 ;  claim  as  to   origin    of  tariff  j 
bills,  236  ;  passage  of  tariff  bill  and  j 
u Force  Bill,"  237;  abolition  peti 
tions  in,  253  ;  report  on  petitions, 
253  ;  more  petitions  referred,  253  ; 
action  on  Dickson's  motion,  254 ; 
conflict  over  right  of  petition,  254  j 
et  seq.  ;  adoption  of  the  Pinckney  j 
resolutions,  261  ;  further  work  of  \ 
Adams   and   Slade,    26:3 ;    rule    of  j 
January   8,    1840,    263 ;    Gordon's  j 
amendment  in,  385  ;  resolutions  as  I 
to  recognition  of  Texan  independ 
ence,  296  ;  contingent  action  as  to 
Texan    independence,    299,    300 ; 
effect     of     action,     300 ;     Wise's  j 
speech  in,  302 ;  Tyler's  message  on  ' 
Texan  treaty,  309 ;  action  on  an 
nexation  of  Texas,  331,  322  ;  action 
on  admission  of  Texas,  322;  con 
currence  with  Senate's   action  on 
Texas,  323  ;  McKay's  bill,  335  ;  the 
Wilmot  proviso,  335,  336  ;  Oregon  [ 
bill  in,  341  ;  action  on  Oregon  bills,  j 
313;    rejects    Clayton    bill,    347; 
final  agreement  with  Senate,  347  ; 
action   on   erection   of    California  , 
and  New  Mexico,  349  et  seq.  ;  com-  i 
pletion  of   compromise  measures,  , 
363,   364 ;    action    on    President's  \ 
message,   369 ;  passage   of  finality  '. 
resolutions,  375  ;  action  on  organ-  ! 
ization   of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  : 
381  et  seq. ;  contest  for  seat  in,  432  ;  < 
appointment   of  committee  of  in 
vestigation  for  Kansas  affairs,  433  ; 
memorials  from  Kansas,  433 ;  bill  j 
for  admission  of  Kansas,  443,  443  ;  '. 


action  on  Kansas,  470.  See  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States 

Houston,  Samuel,  leader  of  Texans, 
293 ;  Ben  ton's  description,  293, 
294 ;  his  early  record,  294 ;  San 
Jacinto  and  the  presidency  of 
Texas,  294;  sends  special  envoy 
to  Washington,  306 ;  promise  of 
Murphy  disavowed,  307 ;  changes 
vote,  347 ;  speech  on  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill,  393  ;  vote  on  Douglas's 
amendment,  393 ;  speech  on  the 
bill,  397 ;  vote  on  Kansas  -  Ne 
braska  bill,  399 

Houston,  S.  D.,  withdraws  from 
Kansas  Territorial  legislature,  421 

Howard,  William  A.,  on  committee 
for  Kansas  investigation,  433 

Howe,  John  W.,  discussion  with 
Giddings,  381,  383 

Hudson  Bay  Company,  agents  in 
Oregon,  314  ;  relation  to  policy  of 
Great  Britain,  314 ;  representa 
tions  as  to  Oregon,  314,  315 

Hr.nt,  M jmucan,  proposes  Texan  an 
nexation  to  Van  Buren,  301 

Hutchinson,  William,  in  "  Free- 
state"  directory  of  Kansas,  443 

IBERVILLE  RIVER,  the,  21,  22 

Illinois,  Commonwealth  of,  slavery 
forbidden,  62,  63 ;  condition  on 
erection,  68,  69,  71 ;  vote  on  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  399  ;  as  to  Dred 
Scott  case,  450 

Independent  treasury,  Van  Buren's 
message  of  September  4,  1837,  284, 
285 ;  Gordon's  proposal,  285 ;  at 
titude  of  the  parties,  285  ;  Act  of 
July  4,  1840,  285;  party  contest 
over  the  bill,  285,  286 

Indian  Springs,  Convention  at,  212 

Indiana,  Commonwealth  of,  slavery 
forbidden,  62,  63 ;  condition  on 
erection,  68,  69,  71  ;  vote  on  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Indiana,  Territory  of,  relation  to 
slavery,  51  ;  jurisdiction  over  part 
of  Louisiana  Territory,  55 

Ingersoll,  Joseph  R.,  claim  as  to 
District  of  Columbia,  257 ;  re 
ports  joint  resolution  on  Texas, 
321 

Ingham,  Samuel  D.,  in  debate,  10; 
position  upon  tariff  bill  of  1827, 
158  ;  as  to  Bank  trouble,  191 

Internal  improvements,  bill  present- 


INDEX 


519 


ed,  14  ;  Calhoun's  speech,  15,  16  ; 
bill  passed,  16;  President's  veto, 
17 ;  Madison's  earlier  recommen 
dations,  17;  failure  to  overcome 
veto,  18  ;  development  in  theory, 
116-119;  the  Act  of  1806,  116; 
Calhoun's  bill  of  1817  vetoed  by 
Madison,  116, 117 ;  analysis  of  vote, 
117,  118;  Cumberland  road  bill  of 
1823,  118;  analysis  of  vote,  118, 
119;  Taylor's  position,  119;  atti 
tude  of  'East  and  West,  119,  120 ; 
Monroe's  veto,  120,  and  message, 
120,  121  ;  vote  on  vetoed  bill,  121  ; 
Act  of  April,  1824, 122  ;  relation  to 
foreign  affairs,  122  \  significance  of 
the  questions,  129  ;  Adams's  first 
message,  155  ;  Van  Buren's  opposi 
tion,  155;  relation  to  political  di 
visions,  156 ;  practical  difficulties, 
156,  157  ;  Jackson's  views  in  Ib29, 
167  ;  passage  of  Maysville  road  bill, 
167;  the  veto,  167,  168;  vote  on 
vetoed  bill,  168  ;  analysis  of  vote, 
168;  significance  of  veto,  169;  ap 
propriations  approved  by  Adams 
and  Jackson,  169 ;  relation  to 
private  enterprise,  169,  170;  rela 
tion  to  slavery,  170 ;  Jackson's 
message  of  December,  1830,  178; 
Jackson's  message  of  December, 
1831,  184 

Iowa,  Commonwealth  of,  admitted, 
290;  memorial  of  legislature  on 
finality  resolutions,  315;  vote  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Jackson,  Andrew,  in  Florida,  24,  25, 
28,  30,  31,  32,  33  ;  attempt  at  cen 
sure,  34,  35,  36 ;  vindicated,  3(5 ; 
Territorial  governor  of  Florida,  38; 
effect  of  Serninole  War,  38  ;  quali 
fications  as  presidential  candidate 
in  1824,  135,  136,  139,  141  ;  elec 
toral  vote  of  1824,  136,137;  the 
Coleman  letter,  138  ;  opposition  to 
Adams  threatened,  142,  143,  and 
begun,  144,  146  ;  elected  President, 
163,  164  ;  makes  Van  Buren  secre 
tary  of  state,  164;  vigorous  foreign 
policy,  164  ;  first  annual  message, 
16(5,  167;  vetoes  Maysville  road 
bill,  167,  168;  significance  of  the 
veto,  169;  appropriations  approved 
by  Adams  and  Jackson,  169  ;  mes 
sage  of  December,  1 829,  as  to  tariff, 
171,  172;  its  reference,  172;  mes 
sage  of  December,  1830,  178  ;  mes 


sage  of  December,  1831,  184  ;  mes 
sage  of  December,  1829,  190;  later 
interpretations  cf  his  attack  on 
Bank,  191,  11)2;  relation  to  "relief 
party  "in  Kentucky,  196;  leader 
of  Democratic  party,  196,  197  ;  at 
titude  to  Bank,  H)7,  198  ;  his  views 
opposed  by  committees,  1 98  ;  mes 
sage  of  December,  1830,  198,  199  ; 
his  message  of  December,  1831, 
200  ;  puts  the  Bank  question  before 
the  people,  200  ;  relation  of  Bank 
question  to  question  of  Jackson's 
election,  201  ;  effect  of  his  veto  of 
Bank  bill,  202;  analysis  of  his 
message,  202-206;  opinion  of  von 
Hoist  on  the  veto  message  con 
sidered,  206,  207,  the  message  inter 
preted,  206-209 ;  relation  of  Con 
gress  to  bis  election  as  President, 
207  ;  the  people  accept  the  princi 
ples  of  Jacksonian  democracy  209  ; 
opinion  of  Georgia's  claims,  216  ; 
reply  to  Cherokees,  216;  message 
of  December,  1829,  216,  217  ;  dif 
ferent  opinions  of  Indian  titles, 
217  ;  failure  to  execute  decision  of 
Supreme  Court,  219,  220  ;  view  on 
South  Carolina's  opinion  of  tariff, 
220;  supposition  as  to  Cabinet 
intrigue  of  1819,  220  ;  theForsyth 
letter,  220;  hostility  of  Jackson 
and  Calhoun,  220,  221  ;  message  of 
December,  1882,  228 ;  proclama 
tion  of  December  10,  1832,  228- 
230  ;  active  military  preparations, 
230,  231 ;  instructions  to  collec 
tors,  230  ;  instructions  to  Scott, 
230,  231  ;  popular  approval  of 
Jackson's  course,  231  ;  attitude  of 
Congress,  231  ;  Hayne's  proclama 
tion,  232  ;  Jackson's  message  of 
January,  1833,  232  ;  Bell's  report 
on  President's  powers,  235  ;  signs 
Compromise  Tariff,  and  u  Force 
Bill,"  238;  motive  in  course  on 
nullification,  238  ;  significance  of 
his  doctrines,  239,  240 ;  as  to  re 
sponsibility  for  Jacksonian  princi 
ples,  240 ;  message  of  1 835  as  to 
use  of  mails,  272,  273  ;  decides  to 
destroy  the  Bank,  279  ;  power  of 
removal,  279  ;  removal  of  McLane 
and  Duane,  280;  the  work  of 
Tancy,  280 ;  consideration  of  the 
proper  exercise  of  power,  280 ; 
censured  by  Senate,  281 ;  Benton 


520 


INDEX 


begins  effort  at  removal  of  censure, 
281 ;  his  contest  successful,  282  ; 
tendency  of  government  to  his  day, 
282 ;  bis  successor,  284 ;  sends 
Mornt  to  Texas,  296 ;  message  of 
December  21,  1836,  on  Texas,  :,98  ; 
special  message  as  to  reprisals,  21)8  ; 
authorizes  Gaines  to  advance  into 
Texas,  298  ;  orders  Ellis  to  make 
demands  on  Mexico,  299  ;  satisfac 
tion  not  given,  299  ;  special  mes 
sage  of  February  6,  1887,  299  ;  re 
quest  for  unusual  powers  not 
granted  by  Congress,  299  ;  recog 
nizes  Texas  and  her  agent,  300 ; 
ends  diplomatic  relations  with 
Mexico,  301 

Jackson,  William,  presents  abolition 
petition,  255 

Jackson,  Zadock,  repudiates  sacking 
of  Lawrence,  4-J8 

Jalapa,  captured  by  Scott,  333 

Jamostown,  slaves  introduced  at,  40 

Janus,  gates  open,  260 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  2,  3 ;  relation  to 
French  philosophy,  129 ;  share  of 
Congress  in  his  election  as  Pres 
ident,  207  ;  principles  restated  by 
Calhoun,  239  ;  tendency  of  govern 
ment  from  his  day,  282  ;  sends  out 
Lewis  and  Clark,  312  ;  view  as  to 
extent  of  Louisiana,  312 

Johnson,  Robert  Ward,  position  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  393 

Johnson,  William,  relation  to  nulli 
fication,  181 

Johnson  County,  Kansas,  contested 
election,  465 

Johnston,  Josiah  S.,  on  bank  com 
mittee  of  Senate,  201 

Jones,  George  Wallace,  position  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  393 

Jones,  John  W.,  reply  to  Adams  on 
right  of  petition,  257 

Jones,  Samuel  J.,  as  sheriff,  arrests 
Branson,  428;  rescue  of  Branson, 
42S ;  goes  to  Franklin  and  calls 
help  from  Missouri,  428,  429 ;  his 
error  recognized,  430 ;  serves  writ 
on  Wood,  433 ;  tries  to  arrest 
Tappan,  434;  attempt  to  assassi 
nate,  434 ;  Donaldson's  reference 
to  the  shooting,  436 ;  the  sacking 
of  Lawrence,  438 

KANSAS  CITY,  Mo.,  316  ;  Branscomb 
and  Robinson  at,  413,  414 


Kansas,  Territory  of,  bill  for  organi 
zation  of,  389 ;  the  abolition  pro 
test,  389,  390;  reply  of  Douglas, 
390;  amendment  of  Chase,  391,  392  ; 
position  of  Wade,  391 ;  amendment 
of  Douglas,  392  ;  views  of  Everett, 
392,  393 ;  speech  of  Houston,  393 ; 
position  of  Bell  and  the  committee, 
393  ;  vote  on  the  amendment,  393  ; 
Chase's  amendment,  394,  395 ; 
Pratt's  amendment,  394  ;  Walker's 
declaration  and  Badger's  amend 
ment,  395  ;  Chase's  third  amend 
ment,  395,  39(5;  Douglas's  amend 
ment,  395,  396;  Chase's  fourth 
amendment,  396 ;  speech  of  Bell 
against  bill,  396,  39?  ;  speech  of 
Houston,  397  ;  final  argument  of 
Douglas,  397,  398;  vote  on  bill  in 
Senate,  398  ;  analysis  of  vote,  398, 
399 ;  rise  of  popular  opposition, 
399,  400  ;  the  Richardson  bill,  400  ; 
the  Senate  bill  in  the  House,  401  • 
position  of  Gushing,  Davis,  and 
Pierce,  401-403 ;  action  in  House, 

403  ;  management  of  bill  by  Steph 
ens,  404  ;  bill  signed  by  President, 

404  ;   analysis   of  vote,   404,  405 ; 
meaning  of  the  vote,  405,  406  ;  re 
lation  of  Act  to  slavery,  407,  408  ; 
the  struggle  for  Kansas,  407  et  seq.; 
the  plan  of  Thayer  and  his  associ 
ates,  409  ;  organization  of  the  so 
ciety,  409,  410  ;  opposition,  410  ;  in 
corporation  of  the  society,  410,  411; 
misrepresentations  as  to  Emigrant 
Aid  Company,  411 ;  considered  as 
of  the   South,    412;    influence    of 
Atchison,  412,  413  ;  expedition  of 
Robinson  and  Branscomb,  413,  414; 
"Platte  County  Self -defensive  As 
sociation,"  414,  415;  the  founding 
of  Lawrence,  415 ;    trouble    over 
contesting  claimants,  415,  416  ;  ar 
rival    of    Governor    Reeder,   416; 
election  of  Whitfield,    417;  effect 
on  Republican  party  of  interfer 
ence    of    Missourians    in   Kansas, 

418  ;  significance  of  the  seating  of 
Whitfield,  418  ;  census  of  Kansas, 

419  ;  interference  of  Missourians  in 
election  of  first  Territorial  legislat 
ure,  419,  420  ;  action  on  contested 
election  cases,  420  ;  supplementary 
elections,  421  ;  first  Teiritorial  leg 
islature,  421 ;  Robinson's  plan  for 
anti-slavery  party,  421,  422  ;  legis- 


INDEX 


521 


lature  meets  at  Pawnee,  432  ;  pro- 
slavery  members  seated,  423,  423  ; 
trouble  over  adjournment  to  Shaw- 
nee  Mission,  438 ;  arrival  of 
Sharpens  rifles,  433  ;  Lane's  faction 
checked  by  Robinson's  Lawrence  ! 
speech,  428,  434  ;  Robinson's  decla 
ration  as  to  slavery,  -424  ;  Conway's 
letter  to  Reeder,  424;  beginning 
of  the  "Free-state"  movement, 
434  ;  legislation  upon  slavery,  434  ; 
its  effect  on  the  North,  424,  435; 
the  Lawrence  and  Topeka  conven 
tions,  435 ;  the  adoption  of  the 
Topeka  constitution,  435  ;  removal 
of  Governor  Reeder,  425 ;  Wood- 
son  Acting-Governor,  425;  elec 
tion  of  Reeder  as  Congressional 
delegate,  435  ;  election  of  Robinson 
as  Governor,  435  ;  conflicts  between 
"  Free-state  "  and  Territorial  Gov 
ernments,  43(5 ;  petition  for  admis 
sion  and  election  of  Senators  by 
11  Free-state  "  party,  426,  427 ; 
characterization  of  "Free-state" 
acts,  437 ;  Robinson's  message  to 
legislature,  437  ;  arrival  of  Govern 
or  Shannon,  427  ;  the  Leavenworth 
convention,  428;  conflict  between 
the  two  governments,  428 ;  the 
Branson  rescue,  438,  429  ;  invasion 
of  Missourians,  42(.);  Lawrence  com 
mittee  meet  Governor  Shannon, 
439 ;  Shannon  goes  to  Lawrence, 
430 ;  agreement  of  Shannon  with 
citizens  of  Lawrence,  430;  Lane, 
Robinson,  and  Shannon  at  Frank 
lin,  430  ;  Atchison  and  the  with 
drawal  of  the  Missourians,  430,  431 ; 
appearance  of  John  Brown,  481  ; 
Shannon's  report  to  President, 
431  ;  appeal  of  leaders  at  Lawrence, 
431 ;  the  President's  proclamation, 
433 ;  attitude  of  "Free-state"'  party 
to  proclamation,  432  ;  difficulty  of 
the  situation,  432,  433 ;  organiza 
tion  under  Topeka  constitution, 
432;  contest  for  seat  in  House  of 
Representatives,  432,  433  ;  House 
appoints  committee  of  investiga 
tion,  433  ;  application  for  admission 
under  Topeka  constitution,  433 ; 
work  of  Jones  and  attempt  to  as 
sassinate  him,  483,  434  ;  the  assault 
repudiated  by  the  "Free-state" 
party,  484  ;  letters  of  Robinson  and 
Sumner,  434 ;  Lecompte's  charge 


to  grand  jury,  435;  the  "treason 
indictments,"  435;  Donaldson's 
proclamation,  435,  436  ;  dealings  of 
citizens  of  Lawrence  with  Shannon 
and  Donaldson,  436,  437 ;  the 
sacking  of  Lawrence,  488 ;  repu 
diation  by  Atchison  and  others, 
438 ;  the  "  Crime  against  Kan 
sas,"  439;  the  attack  on  Sumner, 
439,  440;  the  Pottawattomie  massa 
cres,  440  ;  attitude  of  the  Congres 
sional  committee,  440 ;  character 
ization  of  the  massacre,  441  ;  de 
nunciation  by  settlers,  441  ;  Brown 
and  Pate  at  Black  Jack,  441; 
Shannon's  proclamation  and  the 
work  of  the  troops,  442 ;  effect  of 
massacre  on  "Free-state"  cause, 
442,  448  ;  committee  report  and  bill 
in  House,  442,  448 ;  dispersal  of 
legislature  at  Topeka,  443 ;  Smith 
succeeds  Sumner,  443 ;  the  Law 
rence  convention  and  the  direc 
tory,  443;  "Free-state"  military 
force  organized  and  in  conflict, 
444  ;  capture  of  Titus,  444 ;  treaty 
of  August  17,  at  Lawrence,  444; 
resignation  of  Shannon,  444 ; 
Woodson  again  Acting-Governor, 

444  ;   proclamation  of  August  25, 
444 ;  Missourians   under  Atchison 
in  camp  on  Bull  Creek,  445 ;  de 
struction   of   Ossawattomie,   445  ; 
Smith's  orders  as  to  invaders,  445  ; 
Lane    leads    in   skirmish  at   Bull 
Creek,  445  ;  Woodson's  order  and 
Cooke's  refusal  to  attack  Topeka, 

445  ;  failure  of  plan  to  attack  Le- 
compton,  445,  446  ;  active  steps  by 
President,  446;  actions  of  Geary, 

446  ;  retirement  of  the  Missourians, 
446,  447  ;  resignation  of  Geary,  446  ; 
effect  of  events  on  presidential  elec 
tion,   447;    Buchanan's   inaugural 
address,  447,  448  ;  plan  for  conven 
tion  at  Lecompton,  461 ;    Walker 
and  Stanton  in  charge,  461 ;  nego 
tiations  of   Stanton   with   "Free- 
state"  men,  461,  462;  address  by 
Walker,  462  ;  the  party  situation, 
462  ;  the  "  Free-state  "  legislature, 

462  ;  the  "  Free-state  "  mass-meet 
ing,   463  ;    chances  of  the  Topeka 
constitution,  463  ;  Robinson's  plan 
to  capture  Territorial  government, 

463  ;  Wilson's  advice,  463  ;  the  To 
peka  mass-meeting,  464 ;  the  Grass- 


522 


INDEX 


hopper  Falls  convention,  464  ;  cen 
sus    completed,    404 ;    Lecompton 
convention    assembles,    464 ;    the 
election  of  October  5,  465  ;  contests  i 
in  McGee    and  Johnson  counties,  j 
465 ;    Lane's    conspiracy    and    its  ! 
failure,    465,    466 ;    mass-meeting  ! 
and  convention  at  Lecompton,  4(55, 
466  ;  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
4ii6 ;     "Free-state"    demands    on  ; 
Stanton,  486,  467 ;  constitution  to  j 
be  submitted  in  full,  467  ;  Stanton 
removed,  467 ;    Denver  appointed 
Acting-Governor,  467 ;  Lejompton 
Constitution  accepted  in  election 
of  December  21,  467;  Lecompton 
Constitution  rejected  in  election  of 
January  4, 1858,  468 ;   "Free-state " 
men  in  control  of  three   Govern 
ments   in  Kansas,   468;    Denver's 
report  to  the  President,  468,  469 ; 
President  submits  Lecompton  con-  | 
stitution   to   Congress,  469;    atti 
tude   of    Douglas,    469,    470 ;  Le 
compton  bill  passed  by  Senate  and 
rejected  by  House,  470  ;  the  House 
proposal  rejected,  470  ;  the  English 
bill,    470,   471 ;    the  proposals   re-  j 
jected  in  Kansas,    471  ;    a  fourth  \ 
government  erected,  471  ;  close  of  I 
the  struggle,  471  ;  characterization  I 
of  the  leaders,  471 ,  472 ;  attitude  of  j 
the  general  government,  of  Da,vis,  : 
and  of  Sumner,  473,   473  ;  Act  of 
1854  the  beginning  of  error,  Mis-  ; 
sourians  the  beginners  of  wrong,  I 
473;     characterization     of     John 
Brown's  work,  473,  474  ;  relation  of 
events  in  Kansas  to  Civil  War,  473, 
474.     /See  Nebraska,  Territory  of 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  343,  456  (see 
Kansas,  Territory  of: ;  and  Nebras 
ka,  Territory  of)  ;  effect  of  the 
Dred  Scott  dictum,  460 

Kansas  river,  66,  414 

Kearny,  Philip,    ordered    to   occupy 
New  Mexico,  331 ;  orders  to  Doni- 
phan,    333 ;     occuuies   California,  ; 
333 

Kelly, ,  Editor  of  tiqtiatter  Sov-  j 

ereign,  411 

Kendall,  Amos,  instructions  to  New 
York  postmaster,  271,  272 

Kentucky,    created    Commonwealth  , 
with    slavery,  50,  62,  63  ;  attitude 
to  tariff  of  1824,  115;   attitude  to 
internal  improvements  bill  of  1817,  , 


118  ;  attitude  to  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1822,  119  ;  legislature 
nominates  Clay  for  presidency,  136; 
attitude  toward  tariff  bill  of  1827, 
15S  ;  relation  to  tariff  of  1832,  188  ; 
relief  measures  for  debtors,  195, 
196;  electoral  vote  in  1814,  320; 
views  as  to  slave  policy,  378  ;  vote 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  399 

Kickapoo  Rangers,  organized,  426  ; 
capture  Captain  Brown,  426 

King,  Rufus,  voting,  74 

King,  William  Rufus,  states  his 
creed  on  State  sovereignty,  269, 
270 ;  on  committee  of  Thirteen, 
360 

Kinsey,  Charles,  on  conference  com 
mittee,  88 

Know  Nothing  party,  418 

Kremer,  Geor:-je,  charge  against 
Adams  and  Clay,  141 

LACOCK,  ABNER,  voting,  74 
Lake  of  the  Woods,  312,  313 
Lane,  James  S.,  effort  to  organize 
Democratic  party  in  Kansas,  423; 
elected  Senator  by  "Free-state" 
party,  4:26 ;  negotiations  with 
Shannon,  430;  at  Franklin,  430; 
indictment  against,  435 ;  as  to 
service  of  indictment,  435;  in 
command  of  "Free-state"  force, 
435;  failure  to  arrive  at  Lecomp 
ton  for  attack,  445,  446 ;  result  of 
his  prevarications,  463  ;  conspiracy 
against  Lecompton  convention, 
465  ;  thwarted,  465,  466 
Lawrence,  Arnos  Adams,  member  of 
Emigrant  Aid  Society,  409 ;  his 
work,  411 ;  conference  with  Robin 
son,  413  ;  town  named  in  honor  of, 
415 

Lawrence,  Kansas,  site  occupied, 
411;  town  founded,  415;  quarr- Is 
as  to  claims,  415,  416;  Robinson's 
speech  of  July  4,  1 855,  423 ;  con 
vention  at,  425  ;  the  Branson  res 
cue,  4'28 ;  Missourians  approach, 
429 ;  committee  sent  to  Shan 
non,  429  ;  Shannon  goes  to,  4:10  ; 
agreement  of  citizens  with  Gov 
ernor  Shannon,  430 ;  appearance 
of  John  Brown,  431  ;  appeal  of 
citizens  to  President,  431  ;  Jones 
serves  writ  on  Wood,  433  ;  trouble 
with  Tappan,  434 ;  attempt  to  as 
sassinate  Jones,  434 ;  communica- 


INDEX 


523 


tinns  of  Robinson  and  Sumner  as 
to  assault  on  Jones,  484  ;  indict 
ment  again-st  hotel  and  news 
papers  in,  485  ;  Donaldson's  proc 
lamation,  485,  436 ;  dealings  of 
citizens  with  Shannon  and  Donald 
son,  486,  487;  Donaldson's  force 
approaches  the  town,  487  ;  sacking 

„  of  the  town,  488  ;  repudiation  of 
the  deed,  488 ;  effect  of  the  sack 
ing  and  of  assault  on  Sumner, 
440  ;  effect  of  sacking  modified  by 
Pottawattomie  massacre,  442 ; 
"  Free-state  "  convention  at,  443  ; 
treaty  of  August  17,  444 ;  Geary 
at,  446  ;  Stanton  at,  461  ;  Wilson 
meets  Robinson  at,  4(53  ;  "  Free- 
state  "  forces  ordered  to  meet  at, 
405 

Leavenworth,  Kansas,  "Free-state" 
company  organized  at,  426  ;  con 
vention  at,  428 

Lecompte,  S.  D.,  charge  to  grand  jury 
of  Douglas  County,  435 

Lecompton,  Kansas,  the  Branson 
rescue,  428  ;  citizens  summoned  to, 
by  Donaldson,  435 ;  conflict  at 
Fort  Titus,  444  ;  failure  of  plan  to 
attack  Lecompton,  445,  440 ; 
Geary  at,  446 ;  plan  for  conven 
tion  at,  461 ;  as  to  work  of  con 
vention,  403  ;  convention  assembles 
at,  464  ;  Lane's  conspiracy  against 
convention  at,  465;  "Free-state" 
mass-meeting  at,  465,  466;  con 
stitution  formed  at,  466 ;  legislat 
ure  meets  at,  467.  tice  Kansas 

Lewis,  Meriwether,  sent  out  by  Jef 
ferson,  312;  on  r.he  Columbia,  312 

Lewis,  William  B.,  38  ;  the  Coleman 
letter,  138 

Lexington,  Kentucky,  167 

Liberator,  The,  publication  begun, 
251 

Liberties,  Body  of,  41 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  intimation  as  to 
official  conduct  of  Taney,  456 

Loki,  the,  of  Kansas,  appears,  431 

London,  26,  33 

London,  Bishop  of,  as  to  baptism  of 
slaves,  44 

Loring,  Charles  Greeley,  in  Sims 
case,  872 

Lorings,  the,  in  Crafts  case,  368 

Louisiana,  Commonwealth  of,  erect 
ed,  56  ;  slavery  in,  56,  62,  63,  (55  ; 
condition  on  erection,  09,  71 ;  re 


lation  to  tariff  of  1832,  188  ;  vote 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  899 
Louisiana  territory,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24, 
37 ;  added  to  public  domain,  51  ; 
slavery  in,  54,  55,  56,  57 ;  owned 
by  France  and  Spain,  54  ;  ceded  to 
United  States,  55 ;  divided,  55  ; 
early  ownership  and  division,  65 ; 
condition  on  cession  to  United 
States,  72  ;  motion  of  Thomas  as  to 
slavery,  84 ;  motion  renewed,  87; 
carried,  88  ;  conference  report,  88  ; 
relation  to  Missouri  bill,  92,  93  ; 
ceded  to  France,  and  to  United 
States,  312  ;  as  to  inclusion  of  Ore 
gon,  312  ;  cession  of  1803,  318  ;  ef 
fect  of  acquisition,  306;  act  of 
1820,  382;  as  to  the  Douglas  re 
port  on  Nebraska,  384 ;  as  to  re 
peal  of  Acts  of  1820,  391 ;  as  to 
Dred  Scott  case,  450,  452 

j  Louisiana,   Territory  of,    organized, 
56 ;   name  changed,  56.     /See  Mis 
souri,  Territory  of 
Love  joy,  Owen,  killed.  250 
Lowell,  John,  member  of  Emigrant 

Aid  Society,  409 

Lowell.   Massachusetts,  meetings  on 
fugitive  slave  law,  308 

I  Lower  California,  337 

|  Lowndes,  William,  committee  ser 
vice,  9  ;  on  conference  committee, 
88  ;  reports  bill  on  Missouri,  95, 
96 ;  bill  defeated,  1:9  ;  relation  of 
family  to  nullification,  181 

I  Lundy,  Benjamin,  instigates  aboli 
tion  petition,  252 

j  McCuLLOCH  vs.  Maryland  [4  Wh eat- 
on,  316],  205 

j  McDuffie,  George,  opinion  on  slave 
labor,  1(51  ;  chairman  ways  and 
means  committee,  172  ;  relation  to 
Dr.  Cooper,  173  ;  contention  as  to 
origin  of  tariff  bills,  173,  174;  re 
ports  a  tariff'  bill.  174 ;  its  terms 
and  disposal,  174  ;  forms  economic 
basis  of  nullification,  175,  17(5, 177  ; 
opposition  to  tariff,  177;  amend 
ment  lost,  177  ;  as  to  bill  of  1832, 
185;  tariff  bills  in  House,  186; 
attitude  to  the  Bank,  198  ;  makes 
minority  report  in  support  of 
Bank,  202 
McGee  County,  Kansas,  contested 

election,  465 
McGregor,  Gregor,  30 


524 


INDEX 


McHenry,  Jerry,  rescue  of,  373,  374 
McKay,   James  J.,  introduces  bill. 
835 

McLane,  Louis,  speech  on  Missouri, 
81,  8:3;  removed  from  head  of 
Treasury  Department,  280 

McLean,  John,  voting,  73 

Macon,  Nathaniel,  committee  ser 
vice,  3  ;  position  on  Maine- Missouri 
bill,  83 

Madison,  James,  his  message  of  1815, 
2,  3  ;  vetoes  internal  improvements 
bill,  17;  earlier  recommendations, 
17 ;  relation  to  Republican  party, 
17  ;  relation  to  War  of  1812,  17  ;  as 
to  relation  between  slavery  and 
protection,  109;  vetoes  bill,  1817, 
for  internal  improvements,  116, 
117  ;  his  views,  117 

Mail,  United  States,  effect  of  pres 
ence  of  abolition   literature,  251  ; 
use  by  abolitionists,  270  et   seq.  ; 
Charleston,  South  Carolina,  post- 
office    robbed,    271 ;      request    of  i 
Charleston    postmaster     to    New 
York  postmaster,  271  ;  refusal  to 
receive  abolitionist  documents  in  • 
New  York  post-office,  271  ;    Ken-  j 
dall's  instructions  to  the  postmas 
ters,    271,    272;    the   question  in 
Jackson's  message,  272,  273  ;    Cal- 
houn's  report  and  bill,  273,  274 ; 
criticism  by  Clay,  274  ;  defeat  of 
the  bill,  274;  Act  of  July  2,  1836,  | 
274;  significance  of   the  contest, 
274-277 

Maine,  Commonwealth  of,  constitu 
tion  formed,  76 ;  petition  for  ad 
mission,  77;  bill  introduced  and 
passed  by  House,  77 ;  bill  in  Sen 
ate,  82  ;  connection  with  Missouri 
bill,  82,  80,  87 ;  amended  bill 
passed  in  Senate,  88  ;  House  dis 
agrees,  88  ;  conference  committee 
report,  88,  89;  bill  approved  by 
president,  89;  significance  of  the 
controversy,  88,  90  etseq.  ;  attitude 
to  tariff  of  1824,  114;  attitude 
toward  tariff  of  1824, 115  ;  attitude  | 
toward  tariff  bill  of  1827,  158;  in  i 
election  of  1828,  164 ;  vote  on  / 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Mallary,  Daniel,  reports  tariff  bill  of 
1827,  158 ;  opposes  bill  of  1828  as 
reported,  16<>,  161 

Mangum,  Willie  Person,  motion  as 
to  Clay's  and  Bell's  resolutions, 


360;  on  Committee  of  Thirteen, 
360 

Mann,  Abijah,  Jr.,  motion  in  House, 
258 

Mann,  Horace,  opposition  to  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  373 

Martin,  Luther,  letter  to  Maryland 
legislature,  49,  50 

Maryland,  Commonwealth  of,  9  ;  leg 
islation  on  slavery,  48;  Martin's 
letter  to  legislature,  49,  50  ;  laws 
of,  in  District  of  Columbia,  51 ;  do 
mestic  slave  trade,  57,  58  ;  relation 
to  Cumberland  road,  116;  attitude 
to  internal  improvements  bill  of 
1817,  118  ;  attitude  to  internal  im 
provements  bill  of  1822,  119,  120; 
in  election  of  18:28,  163,  164  ;  tax  on 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  194 ;  de 
cision  on  the  tax,  195  ;  relation  to 
slavery  in  District  of  Columbia, 
253  ;  vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
399 

Mason,  James  Murray,  reads  Cal- 
houn's  speech,  358 ;  on  Committee 
of  Thirteen,  360 

Mason,  Jeremiah,  in  Bank  trouble, 
191 

Mason,  John  Young,  calls  yeas  and 
nays,  253  ;  yields  to  Adams,  253 ; 
the  Ostend  manifesto,  408 

Mason,  Jonathan,  voting,  73 

Mason  and  Dixon's  Line,  163 

Massachusetts,  Commonwealth  of, 
13;  slavery  recognized,  41  ;  slave 
laws,  46 ;  substantial  abolition  of 
slavery,  48 ;  separation  of  Maine, 
76  et  seq.  ;  as  a  type,  86;  as  to 
citizenship  law,  99 ;  attitude  to 
tariff  bill  of  1823,  111 ;  and  to  that 
of  1824,  114  ;  attitude  toward  tariff 
of  1 824,  115;  attitude  toward  tariff 
bill  of  1827,  158  ;  abolition  petition 
in  House,  255 ;  laws  on  jails,  370 ; 
vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
399 ;  legislature  grants  charter  to 
Thayer's  society,  409 

Matamoras,  concentration  of  Mexi 
can  troops  at,  328 ;  approach  of 
Taylor,  329 ;  occupied  by  Taylor, 
331 

Maurepas,  Lake,  21,  23 

May,  Samuel  Joseph,  the  "Jerry 
rescue,"  374 

Maysville  road  bill  passed,  167;  ve 
toed,  167,  168;  vote  on  vetoed  bill, 
168 ;  analysis  of  vote,  168 


INDEX 


525 


Mellen,  Prentiss,  position  on  Maine- 
Missouri  bill,  83 

Mexico,  as  to  Congress  of  Verona, 
124  ;  treaty  of  1825  with  Colombia, 
]47  ;  revolts  from  Spain,  291  ;  the 
Austin  grant,  291 ;  establishment 
of  federal  government,  291 ;  Busta- 
mente's  decree  on  immigration, 
291  ;  refuses  to  sell  any  Texan  ter 
ritory,  292  ;  overthrow  of  federal 
government,  292 ;  possibility  of 
complications  with,  296  ;  minister 
leaves  Washington,  298,  299;  de 
mand  by  Ellis,  299;  full  satisfac 
tion  refused,  299  ;  impossibility  of 
regaining  Texas,  800 ;  diplomatic 
relations  with  United  States  re 
sumed,  301  ;  the  claims  commis 
sion,  301,  302;  Great  Britain  as 
mediator  between  Mexico  and 
Texas,  304 ;  threatens  war  on 
United  States,  305;  claims  Texans 
are  still  rebels,  305  ;  Benton's  criti 
cism  of  the  Texas  treaty,  308  ;  re 
lation  of  war  to  election  of  Polk, 
320  ;  threatens  war,  320 ;  Tyler's 
message  of  1844,  320,  321  ;  makes 
annexation  of  Mexico  a  casus  belli, 
327 ;  envoy  leaves  Washington, 
327;  Slidell's  mission,  327,  328; 
governments  of  Herrera  and  Pa- 
redes,  328  ;  gathering  of  forces  at 
Matamoras,  328  ;  position  of  Mex 
ico  with  reference  to  Texan  boun 
dary,  328  ;  war  with  United  States, 
329-334 ;  title  between  Nueces  and 
Rio  Grande,  330,  331  ;  persistence 
of  the  Government,  332;  Santa 
Anna  again  in  control,  332 ;  Polk's 
message  of  August  6,  1846,  334, 
335  ;  McKay's  bill  and  the  Wihnot 
proviso,  335-337 ;  Polk's  message 
of  December,  1846,  335  ;  the  First 
embassy,  3o7 ;  rejection  of  pro 
posals,  337;  the  Mexican  offer, 
337 ;  war  resumed,  337,  338  ;  treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  338  ;  result 
of  treaty  with,  339  ;  proposal  as  to 
Mexican  acquisitions,  341,  342,  349, 
350 ;  views  of  Berrien  and  Webster 
as  to  slavery  in  Mexican  acquisi 
tions,  351,  352;  Foote's  bill,  354; 
problem  of  Texan  boundary,  354, 
355 ;  Clay's  plan,  350 ;  opposition  , 
of  Southerners,  356 ;  attitude  of 
abolitionists,  357 ;  relation  of 
Mexican  acquisition  to  slavery,408  I 


Mexico,  City  of,  captured,  338 

Mexico,  Gulf  of,  20,  21,  297,  307,  337, 
363 

Michigan,  Commonwealth  of,  290 ; 
electoral  vote  in  1844,  320 ;  vote  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399  ;  early 
Repu  blican  party  in,  41 8 

Mississippi,  Commonwealth  of,  cre 
ated  with  slavery,  (>2,  63  ;  legislat 
ure  calls  Nashville  convention, 
375  ;  convention  in,  375 ;  vote  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Mississippi  River,  the,  21,  22,  38,  66, 
78,  290,  381 

Missouri,  Commonwealth  of,  33 ;  cre 
ation,  61-107;  significance  of  the 
circumstance,  65  ;  petition  for 
erection,  66 ;  memorial  for  erec 
tion,  66 ;  the  Tallmadge  amend 
ment,  66-73  ;  bill  for  erection 
passed  by  House,  73  ;  bill  passes 
Senate  without  Tallmadge  amend 
ment,  74  ;  disagreement,  74  ;  ques 
tion  again  presented,  74,  75  ;  Tay 
lor's  plan,  75,  76,  78  ;  Storrs's  plan, 
78  ;  Taylor's  motion  and  argument 
on  it,  78  ct  seq.  ;  Holmes's  speech, 
80,  81  ;  McLane's  speech,  81,  82; 
memorial  for  admission  referred, 
82 ;  connection  with  Maine  bill, 
82,  83,  87 ;  argument  of  Pinkney, 
84-86 ;  motion  of  Thomas,  84,  87, 
88 ;  amended  bill  carried  in  Son- 
ate,  88 ;  House  disagrees,  88  ; 
agreement  of  conference  commit 
tee,  88,  89  ;  report  accepted,  89  ; 
bill  signed  by  President,  89  ;  con 
sideration  of  the  results,  90-95 ; 
proposed  constitution  before  Con 
gress,  95;  the  Lowndes  bill,  95, 
96 ;  opposition  of  Sergeant,  96,  97  ; 
consideration  of  the  situation,  97, 
98,  99;  defeat  of  Lowndes  bill, 
99 ;  Smith  bill  passes  Senate,  99 ; 
tabled  by  House,  99;  efforts  of 
Eustis,  100 ;  Clay's  plan,  100 ;  re 
port  of  Committee  of  Thirteen, 

100,  101  ;  plan  defeated,  101  ;  oppo 
sition  of  Tomlinson,  10]  ;  confer 
ence    committee    and  its    report, 

101,  102;    report  attached,    102; 
resolution  passed,  102,  103  ;  effects 
of  the  compromise,  103-107;   de 
cision  brings  slavery  into  national 
politics,  108  ;  attitude  toward  tar 
iff  of  1824,    115;    attitude  toward 
tariff  bill  of  1837,  158;  relation  to 


526 


INDEX 


tariff  of  1833,   188 ;    admitted  as 
Commonwealth,  289  ;  line  of  com 
promise  in  Burt's  amendment,  341, 
and  in  Douglas's  amendment,  347  ; 
the     compromise    in    connection 
with  the  Oregon  bill,  348 ;  views 
as  to  slavery  policy,  378 ;  bill  to 
organize  territory   west    of,    381  ; 
Atchison's  objection    to  such  or 
ganization,    382 ;    Dixon   and   the 
repeal    of    the   Compromise,   387, 
388 ;     vote    on    Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  399  ;  misrepresentations  as  to 
Emigrant  Aid  Company,  411 ;  the 
u  border  ruffians,"  411,  412;  atti 
tude  to  slavery  in   Kansas,   412; 
influence  of   Atchison,   412,    4.13; 
"Platte    County    Self  -  defensive  ' 
Association,"  414,  415;  claimants 
to  site  of  Lawrence,   Kansas,  415, 
416;    interference  in  election    oil 
Whitfield    in    Kansas,   416,    417  ;j 
relation  of  Missouri   Compromise  j 
and  Republican  party,   417,  418;  1 
effect  on  Republican  party  of  Mis-  ; 
Bourian   interference    in    Kansas, 
418  ;       organization     in      "Blue 
Lodges,"    419;      interference     in 
Kansas   Territorial    election,   419, 
420 ;  Kansas  legislature  at  Shaw-  ! 
nee  Mission,  423 ;  Robinson's  dec-  j 
laration    as    to    slavery   in,    424 ;  i 
Missourians  summoned  by  Sheriff 
Jones,    429 ;    Missourians   on   the 
Wakarusa,  429  ;  attitude  of  Shan-  I 
non  toward  Missourians,  430 ;  in-  j 
fluenced  by  Atchison  to  withdraw,  j 
430,   431  ;    claims  of  intended  in-  | 
vasion,  431,  432 ;    preparation  for 
further  invasion,  435,  436 ;  volun 
teers    under  Pate,  4-41 ;    dispersal 
of  volunteers  under  WhitSeld  in 
Kansas,  441 ,  442  ;  import  of  Wood- 
son's    accession    to    power,    444 ; 
Missourians  on  Bull  Creek  and  at 
Ossawattomie,  445 :  new  invasion 
of  Kansas,  446  ;    forced  to   retire 
by  United  States  troops,  446,  447  ; 
as  to   D.red  Scott   case,  450-452; 
decision  of  Supreme  Court  of  Mis-  j 
souri,   451 ;    the   Missnuriaiis    the 
beginners  of  wrong,  473 

Missouri,  Territory  of,  organized,  56  ; 
slavery  in,  56,  65 

Missouri  River,  the,  66,  414 

Mitchell,  David  B.,  28,  29 

Mobile,  cession  of  river  and  por+  of, 21 


Mohawk  and  Hudson  railroad,  begun, 
169 

Molino  del  Rey,  battle  of,  338 

Monroe,  James,  relation  to  Jackson, 
31,  34,  35 ;  as  to  relation  between 
protection  and  slavery,  110;  mes 
sages  of  1821  and  1822,  110 ;  mes 
sage  of  1823,  111;  veto  of  1823, 
120 ;  message  on  internal  improve 
ments,  120,  121,  156  ;  message  of 
December,  1823,  125-128;  electoral 
vote  of  1820,  129;  interpretation 
of  message  of  1823  by  Spanish- 
Americans,  146,  147,  149;  cabinet 
intrigue  against  Jackson,  220 

"Monroe  Doctrine,"  the,  125-128, 
146 

Monterey,  captured  by  Taylor,  331, 
332  ;  Doniphan  sent  to,  332 

Monterey,  California,  convention  at, 
343 

Moors,  45 

Moriit,  Henry  M.,  agent  to  Texas, 
296 ;  report  to  Forsyth,  296,  297 

Murphy,  W.  S.,  letter  from  Upshur, 
304  ;  assurance  to  Texas  of  pro 
tection,  306  ;  promise  to  Houston 
disavowed,  307 

NAPOLEON.     See  Bonaparte 

Napoleonic  decrees,  54 

Nashville  convention,  375 

National  Assembly  of  France,  54 

National  Era,  the,  protest  against 
Kansas- Nebraska  bill,  389;  effect 
of  the  address,  400 

National  Intelligencer,  letter  of  Clay, 
319,  320 

National  Republican  party,  the 
origin,  104  ;  circumstance  of  ap 
pearance,  146;  party  nomenclature, 
162,  163 ;  insists  on  taking  the 
Bank  as  a  campaign  issue,  200, 
201 ;  nominates  Clay  for  presidency, 
201  ;  feeling  toward  Jackson,  202; 
its  defeat  in  1832,  202;  basis  of 
party  action,  278,  279 ;  known  as 
Whig  party,  281,  282.  See  Whig 
Party 

Navy  of  the  United  States,  legisla 
tion  upon,  13,  14 

Nebraska,  Territory  of,  bill  for  or 
ganization  passed  by  House,  381 ; 
the  Howe-Giddings  colloquy,  381, 
382  ;  speech  of  Atchison,  382  ;  bill 
introduced  by  Dodge,  382;  bill 
and  report  by  Douglas,  382,  383  ; 


INDEX 


527 


consideration  of  the  report  and  its 
author,  383-387 ;  dictum  of  the 
committee,  387  ;  Dixon's  proposal, 
387  ;  Seward  and  Dixon,  387,  388  ; 
new  bill  presented  by  Douglas, 
389  ;  abolition  protest  in  National 
JEVa,  389;  reply  of  Douglas,  390; 
amendment  of  Chase,  391  ;  posi 
tion  of  Wade,  391  ;  amendment  of 
Douglas,  392 ;  views  of  Everett, 
392.  393  ;  Houston's  speech,  393  ; 
position  of  Bell  and  committee, 
393;  vote  on  amendment,  393  ; 
Chase's  amendment,  394,  395 ; 
contention  of  Badger  and  Pratt, 
394  ;  declaration  of  Walker  and 
Badger's  amendment,  395;  Chase's 
third  amendment,  395,  396  ;  Doug 
las's  amendment,  395,  39b' ;  Chase's 
fourth  amendment,  396 ;  speech  of 
Bell  against  bill,  396,  397  ;  speech 
of  Houston,  397 ;  final  argument 
of  Douglas,  397,  398  ;  vote  in  Sen 
ate  on  bill,  398  ;  analysis  of  vote, 
398,  399  ;  rise  of  popular  opposi 
tion,  399,  400;  the  Richardson 
bill,  400  ;  Senate  bill  in  House, 
400 ;  position  of  Cushing,  Davis, 
and  Pierce,  401-403  ;  actions  in 
House,  403  ;  management  of  bill 
by  Stephens,  404  ;  bill  signed  by 
President,  404  ;  analysis  of  vote, 
404,  405  ;  meaning  of  the  vote,  405. 
406 ;  relation  of  Act  to  slavery, 
407,  408  ;  considered  as  of  North, 
412 ;  immigrants  to  Kansas 
through,  445  ;  the  Act  of  1854  the 
beginning  of  error,  473 

Negro  Fort,  28,  29 

Negro  labor,  adapted  to  the  South,  42 

Negro  slavery.     See  Slavery 

Nelson,    Samuel,   position  on   Dred 
Scott  case,  452 

Nelson,   John,   Secretary   of  State, 
disavows    Murphy's     promise     to 
Houston,  307 ;   relation  to  Texas  j 
question,  307 

New  England,  7,  59 ;  opposed  to  in-  J 
ternal  improvements  bill  of  1817,  j 
117 ;    attitude    to    improvements  ! 
bill  of  1822,  119  ;    attitude   upon 
Maysville  road  bill,  168 ;  votes  as 
to  Pinckney  resolution,  263 

New  England  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
formed,  251 

New  Hampshire,  Commonwealth  of, 
legislation  on  slavery,  48 ;  attitude 


toward  tariff  of  1824,  115 ;  in  elec 
tion  of  1 824,  142  ;  vote  on  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  399 

New  Jersey,  Commonwealth  of,  legis 
lation  on  slavery,  48  ;  attitude  on 
Maysville  road  bill,  168  ;  legisla 
tive  memorial  on  finality  resolu 
tions,  375  ;  vote  on  Kansas-Nebras 
ka  bill,  399 

New  Mexico,  Kearny  ordered  to  oc 
cupy,  331  ;  importance  of  Buena 
Vista,  333 ;  about  to  be  trans 
ferred,  334 ;  acquisition  in  view, 
337 ;  in  negotiations,  337 ;  treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  338;  Folk's 
message  of  July  6,  1848,  345,  346  ; 
motions  of  Bright  and  Clayton, 
346;  the  Clayton  bill,  346,  347; 
Folk's  message  of  December,  1848, 
348  ;  Douglas's  bill,  349  ;  Smith's 
bill,  349;  Berrien's  report,  349, 
350;  new  bill  by  Douglas,  350; 
motion  of  Walker,  350,  351 ;  failure 
of  Congress  to  act,  352  ;  Taylor's 
message  of  December  4,  1849,  354 ; 
Foote's  bill,  354,  as  to  question  of 
Texan  frontier,  355,  Clay's  plan, 
355,  356;  Webster's  Seventh  of 
March  Speech,  359  ;  Bell's  proposi 
tions,  359,  360  ;  report  from  com 
mittee  on  Territories,  360  ;  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360  ;  Clay's  re 
port,  360,  361  ;  encroachments  of 
Bell.  362.  363 ;  passage  of  bill  for 
territorial  organization,  363,  364 ; 
as  to  the  Douglas  report  on  Ne 
braska,  384 ;  Chase  on  Act  of  1850, 
391 

New  York,  Commonwealth  of,  legis 
lation  on  slavery,  48;  attitude  to 
internal  improvements  bill  of  1817, 
118;  attitude  to  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1822,  119 ;  in  election 
of  1824,  137;  in  election  of  1828, 
164 ;  attitude  on  Maysville  road 
bill,  168;  electoral  vote  in  1844, 
320 ;  vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
399 

New  York  Central  Railroad,  system 
begun, 169 

New  York  City,  attitude  to  tariff 
bill  of  1823,  111  ;  and  to  that  of 
1824,  114;  attitude  to  tariff  of 
1824,  115  ;  attitude  toward  tariff- 
bill  of  1827,  158;  postmaster  re 
fuses  to  receive  abolitionist  docu 
ments,  271 ;  the  instructions  from 


528 


INDEX 


Kendall,  271,  273;  arrest  of  Ham 
let,  367  ;  meetings  on  fugitive  slave 
law,  367 ;  publication  of  protest 
against  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  389 

New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer, 
applies  name  to  Whig  Party,  282 

Nicholls,  Edward,  25,  26,  27.'  28 

Nicholls  Fort,  27,  28 

Nicholson,  A.  O.  P.,  letter  from 
Cass,  345 

Niles,  John  Milton,  presents  memo 
rial  on  Texas,  2<J5 

Nootka  Convention,  311 

North  Carolina,  Commonwealth  of, 
conditional    cession     of     western  ' 
lands,    50,    56 ;     attitude    to    in-  j 
ternal  improvements  bill  of  1817,  j 
117,    118 ;     attitude    to     internal 
improvements   bill   of  1822,    119; 
stock  held  in  United  States  Bank, 
203;  electoral  vote  in  1844,  320; 
vacancy  in  Senate  delegation,  398 ; 
vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Northwest,  the,  attitude  to  internal 
improvements  bill  of  ]817,  118; 
attitude  to  internal  improvements 
bill  of  1822,  119 

Nueces,  River,  300,  316,  329,  330,  337, 
361 

Nullification,  origin,  169;  economic 
basis,  175,  176,  177;  attitude  of 
South  Carolina,  176;  threatened 
by  McDuffie,  177  ;  Calhoun's  pub 
lications,  179,  and  argument,  180, 
181  ;  parties  in  South  Carolina, 
181,  182;  nullification  or  rebellion, 
183,  184;  Calhoun's  theory,  189; 
in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina, 
210;  the  South  Carolina  conven 
tion,  221  ;  the  Ordinance  of  Nulli 
fication,  222,  223  ;  Ordinance  sent 
to  the  legislature,  224;  Hayne's 
attitude,  224 ;  acts  for  enforcement 
of  Ordinance,  224-226 ;  views  on 
the  position  of  South  Carolina, 
226-228  ;  South  Carolina  in  Jack- 
eon's  message  of  1832,  228  ;  Jack 
son's  proclamation  of  December  10, 
1832,228-230;  Jackson's  message 
of  January,  1833,  232;  execution 
of  Ordinance  postponed,  23.»  ;  char 
acter  of  nullification  defined  by 
Webster,  237  ;  Ordinance  of  Nulli 
fication  withdrawn,  238  ;  motive  of 
leaders  in  affairs  of  nullification, 
23S ;  nullification  as  represented 
by  Amos  Kendall,  272 


|  OBREGON,  PABLO,  negotiations  as  to 

Panama  Congress,  147,  148,  149 
I  Ohio,  Commonwealth  of,  slavery  for 
bidden.  62.  63  ;   condition  on  erec 
tion,  68,  69,  71  ;   appropriation   of 
enabling  act,  116;  tax  on  Bank  of 
United    States,    194;  the    result, 
195 ;  memorial  on  Texas,  296  ;  vote 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 
Ohio  River,  the,  48,  (52,  63,  167 
Oliver,  Mordecai,  on  committee  for 
Kansas  investigation,  433 ;  inves 
tigates    Pottawattomie   massacre, 
440 

Onis,  Luis  de,  37,  38 
Orders  in  Council,  British,  54 
Ordinance  of  1787,  passed,  48 ;  au 
thority  of  the  Congress,  49  ;  restric 
tion  on  slavery,  69 ;  in  Douglas's 
bill,  341 ;  in  the  Smith  bills,  349 
Oregon,  its  "re-occupation"  in  the 
Democratic  platform,  309;  points 
in  the  question,  310 ;  Oregon  of 
the  last  century,  311  ;  Spanish  and 
English  claims.  311;  the  JSootka 
Convention,  311,  312;  effect  of 
war  between  Spain  and  Great 
Britain,  312  ;  ceded  to  France  and 
to  United  States,  312;  work  of 
Lewis  and  Clark,  312 ;  treaty  of 
Utrecht,  312 ;  Astoria  founded, 
312,  313 ;  joint  occupation  agree 
ment,  313 ;  agreement  of  1S:J8, 
314;  effect  of  Whitman's  work, 
316  ;  in  platform  of  1844,  318  ;  ef 
fect  of  election  of  1844,  320 ;  Ty 
ler's  message  of  1844,  321  ;  Folk's 
first  message,  324 ;  his  recommen 
dations,  324 ;  the  question  before 
Congress,  324  ;  the  action  of  Con 
gress,  324,  325;  treaty  of  June, 
1846,326;  bill  reported  by,  340, 
341 ;  Thompson's  amendment, 
341  ;  the  Douglas  bill,  341 ;  defeat 
of  Burt's  amendment,  341 ;  Wick's 
proposal,  341,  342;  speech  by 
Rhett,  342,  343  ;  end  of  the  second 
bill,  343 ;  new  bill  by  Douglas, 
343  ;  special  message  of  Polk,  344; 
Hall's  amendment,  344 ;  views  of 
Calhoun  and  Davis,  344 ;  Davis 
moves  amendment,  344 ;  effect  of 
Davis  and  Hale  on  action  of 
Senate,  345 ;  motions  of  Bright 
and  Clayton,  346  ;  the  Clayton 
bill,  346,  347  ;  the  final  settlement, 
347  ;  bill  approved,  348 


INDEX 


529 


Orleans,  Territory  of,  organized,  55 ; 
slavery  in,  55 ;  erected  into  Com 
monwealth,  56 

Osceola,  begins  hostilities,  290 ;  de 
feated,  290 

Ossawattomie,  Kansas,  destroyed  by 
Missourians,  445  ;  effect  of  the  at 
tack,  445 

Ostend,  the  manifesto  from,  408 

Otis,  Harrison  Gray,  voting,  74  ;  po 
sition  on  Maine-Missouri  bill,  88 

Oxford  University,  Professor  Senior 
of,  186 

PACIFIC  OCEAN,  claims  in  the  north 
of  various  nations,  123.  311,  324, 
325,  326,  341,  358,  375,  379,  381 

Palo  Alto,  battle  of,  330 

Panama  Congress,  early  negotia 
tions,  147,  148,  149;  commission 
ers  of  United  States  named,  149, 
150  ;  popular  views  of  the  move 
ment,  150;  analysis  of  vote  in  Sen 
ate,  150,  151 ;  relation  of  vote  to 
slavery,  151 ;  nature  of  opposition, 
153  ;  adjournment  of  the  congress, 

153,  154  ;  discussion  of  the  results, 

154,  155  ;  effect  of  question  on  Re 
publican  party,  155 

Paredes  y  Arrillago,  Mariano,  leader 
of  military  party,  328  ;  overthrows 
Herrera,  328;  refuses  to  receive 
Slidell,  328 

Paris,  treaty  of.     See  Treaty 

Parker,  Severn  E.,  on  Conference 
Committee,  88 

Parker,  William,  opposition  to  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  373 

Parkers,  the,  in  Crafts  case,  368 

Parma,  Duke  of,  23 

Parrot,  John  T.,  voting,  73 

Partus  sequitur  ventrem,  43,  44,  45 

Pate,  H.  C.,  captured  at  Black  Jack 
by  Brown,  441 ;  rescued  by  Sum- 
ner,  442 

Patton,  John  M.,  speaks  in  House, 
259  ;  conclusion  from  his  position, 
259 

Pawnee,  Kansas,  legislature  meets  at, 
422 

Pearce,  James  Alfred,  introduces 
bill  on  Texan  boundary,  363  ;  not 
voting  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
398,  399 

Pennsylvania,  Commonwealth  of,  3  ; 
provision  for  gradual  emancipa 
tion,  48 ;  62,  63 ;  attitude  to  tariff 


bill  of  1823,  111 ;  relation  to  Cum 
berland  Road,  116  ;  attitude  to  in 
ternal  improvements  bill  of  1817, 
118  ;  attitude  to  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1822,  119;  conven 
tions  nominate  Jackson  for  presi 
dency,  136 ;  in  election  of  1824, 137, 
138,  139;  attitude  to  ward  tariff  bill 
of  1827,  158  ;  in  election  of  1828, 
162,  164;  attitude  on  Maysville 
road  bill,  168;  petitions  for  aboli 
tion,  252,  253  ;  memorial  on  Texas, 
296 ;  vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
399 

Pennsylvania  railroad,  system  be 
gun,  169 

Pensacola,  24,  25,  32 
Perdido  River,  the,  21,  22,  23,  25 
Perote,  captured  by  Scott,  333 
Peru,  treaty  of  1823  with  Columbia, 

147 

Petition,  Right  of,  early  action  on 
abolition  petitions,  253 ;  the 
Chinn-Dickson  controversy,  254  ; 
Slade's  motion,  254 ;  Polk's  rul 
ing,  255  ;  Jackson's  petition  and 
Hammond's  motion,  255  ;  relation 
of  the  Constitution  to  the  right  of 
petition,  255,  256  ;  customary  pro 
cedure  before  1834,  256;  wrangle 
over  Hammond's  two  motions, 
256  ;  the  final  arrangement,  256  ; 
Adams's  appeal  for  right  of  peti 
tion,  257  ;  reply  by  Jones,  257 ; 
Granger's  and  Ingersoll's  claim  as 
to  District  of  Columbia,  257  ;  de 
mand  of  Wise,  257,  258  ;  Slade's 
declaration  of  war  on  slavery,  258  ; 
Garland's  argument,  258 ;  disposal 
of  the  question,  258  ;  revived  by 
Adams,  258,  259  ;  ruling  of  Speak 
er,  259 ;  Southern  members  take 
advanced  ground,  259,  260 ;  effort 
of  Adams  at  peace,  260  ;  deci 
sion  on  the  fifty-fourth  rule,  260 ; 
the  contest  precipitated,  260; 
Pinckney  resolutions  quoted,  261  ; 
the  new  rule  of  procedure,  261, 
262;  affair  of  February  6,  1837, 
262 ;  rule  as  to  petition  by  slaves, 
quoted,  262  ;  further  attempt  at 
agitation  by  Slade,  262  ;  increase 
of  petitions,  263  ;  the  standing  rule 
of  1840,  quoted,  263  ;  effect  of  this 
step,  263,  264;  disposal  of  the 
question  by  the  Senate,  264,  265 ; 
the  Vermont  petition,  265-269; 


530 


INDEX 


position  of  Calhoun,  279 ;  disposal 
by  Swift's  motion,  270 ;  signifi 
cance  of  the  contest,  274-277  ;  re 
sult  of  the  struggle,  296 

Pettigru,  James  L.,  relation  to  nul 
lification,  181 

Phelps,  Samuel  Shethar,  on  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  360 

Philadelphia,  Pa. ,  constitutional 
convention  at,  49 

Phillips,  Wendell,  opposes  fugitive 
slave  law,  373 

Philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury,  47 

Philosophy  of  1776,  52 

Pickering,  Timothy,  committee  ser 
vice,  3 

Pierce,  Franklin,  nominated  for  pres 
idency,  376  ;  elected,  377 ;  relation 
to  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  401,  403  ; 
views  of  historians  stated  and  con 
sidered,  401,  402 ;  signs  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  404  ;  views  on  emi 
gration  to  Territories,  410;  appoints 
Shannon  Governor  of  Kansas  Ter 
ritory,  427;  Shannon's  report  to, 
431;  appeal  from  "Free-state" 
party  in  Kansas,  431 ;  proclama 
tion  as  to  Kansas,  432 ;  disap 
proves  Col.  Sumner's  course,  443  ; 
takes  active  steps  as  to  Kansas, 
446 

Pinckney,  Henry  Laurens,  reports 
resolution  on  control  of  slavery, 
261  ;  resolution  re-enacted,  262 

Pinkney,  William,  argument  on 
powers  of  Congress,  84-86 ;  argu 
ment  restated,  86,  87 ;  effect  of 
his  argument,  87 ;  on  conference 
committee,  88 

"  Platte  County  Self -defensive  Asso 
ciation,"  formed,  414,  415 

Pleasants,  James,  committee  service, 
3 

Poinsett,  Joel  Roberts,  effort  with 
reference  to  "Monroe  Doctrine," 
128 

Point  Isabel,  base  of  supplies,  329 

Polignac,  Jules  Aiiguste  Armand 
Marie  de,  declaration  of  Canning, 

Political  philosophy,  French,  129, 
139,  193 

Polk,  James  Knox,  ruling  as  Speaker, 
255  ;  quoted,  256  ;  confused  rul 
ings,  256 ;  further  ruling  on  pro 
cedure  as  to  petitions,  259 ;  con 


clusion  from  his  position,  259; 
decision  on  fifty -fourth  rule,  260 ; 
nominated  for  presidency,  309 ; 
attitude  of  abolitionists,  320; 
elected  President,  320  ;  first  annual 
message,  324 ;  his  recommen 
dations,  324 ;  the  question  before 
Congress,  825;  the  action  of  Con 
gress,  325,  326;  Polk's  dealings 
with  the  Senate,  326;  treaty  of 
June,  1846,  326;  overtures  to 
Mexico,  327;  the  Slidell  mission, 
327,  328  ;  duty  as  to  Texan  boun 
dary,  329 ;  orders  to  General  Tay 
lor,  329  ;  message  on  Mexican  War, 
330  ;  authorized  to  call  for  volun 
teers,  33  L  ;  orders  to  Kearny, 
Sloat,  Stockton,  and  Taylor,  331 ; 
message  of  August  6,  1846,  334 ; 
McKay's  bill, 335;  Wil mot's  amend 
ment,  335  ;  Polk's  message  of  De 
cember,  1846,  335;  empowered  tac 
itly  to  secure  California  and  New 
Mexico,  337 ;  the  treaty  offered 
through  Trist,  337;  rejected  by 
Mexico,  337;  recalls  Trist,  338; 
message  to  Congress,  338 ;  treaty 
of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  338  ;  sends 
treaty  to  Senate,  339  ;  special  mes 
sage  on  Oregon,  344 ;  message  on 
California  and  New  Mexico,  345, 
346 ;  approves  Oregon  bill,  348 ; 
message  on  California  and  New 
Mexico,  348 ;  effect  of  message  on 
California,  352,  353 
Pomeroy,  S.  C.,  at  Lawrence,  415 
Pontchartrain,  Lake,  21,  23 
Porto  Rico,  in  Spanish-American 

troubles,  152,  153,  154 
Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  191 
Portugal,  Clay's  attitude  to  its  col 
onies,  135 

Pottawattomie  Creek,  massacre  on, 
440 ;  the  massacre  characterized, 
441  ;  and  denounced  by  the  set 
tlers,  441 ;  effect  of  massacre,  442  ; 
end  of  fighting  occasioned  by  mas 
sacre,  447 

Potter,  James,  owner  of  Sims,  372 
Pratt,    Thomas   George,    contention 
as     to     amendment     of     Chase's 
amendment,  394,  3U5 
Prigg  vs.   Pennsylvania   [16  Peters, 

539],  363 

Protection,  as  regarded  between  1815 
and  1820,  109;  as  voiced  by  the 
House  in  1822,  110;  Monroe's 


INDEX 


531 


messages  of  1821  and  1823,  110  ; 
bill  of  1823,  111  ;    Monroe's  mes 
sage   of  1823,    111;    bill   of   1824, 
112.    Sec  Tariff 
Prussia,    King    of,   as    arbiter    for 

claims  commission,  302 
Prussia,  in  Holy  Alliance,  123 
Puebla,  captured  by  Scott,  333 

QUAKERS,  petitions  for  abolition  of 
slavery,  252,  253 

Quincy,  Edmund,  opposition  to  fu 
gitive  slave  law,  373 

RAILROADS,  begun  in  the  United 
States,  169;  relation  to  national 
improvements,  169,  170 

Randolph,  John,  11 ;  opposition  to 
tar  iff  of  1810,  12 

Rantoul,  Robert,  Jr.,  in  Sims  case, 
372 

Red  River,  the,  33 

Reeder,  Andrew  H.,  arrives  at  Fort 
Leaven  worth,  416 ;  character  and 
•work,  416;  action  upon  contested 
election  cases,  420;  criticism  by 
Robinson,  420,  421  ;  disregard  of 
his  certificates  of  election,  421, 
422;  attitude  of  anti-slavery 
party,  421 ;  difficulties  in  treat 
ment  proposed  by  Robinson,  422  ; 
calls  legislature  to  meet  at  Paw 
nee,  422 ;  breaks  with  legislature 
over  question  of  adjournment  to 
Shawnee  Mission,  423 ;  letter 
from  Coirway,  424;  removed  from 
governorship  of  Kansas  Territory, 
425 ;  elected  Congressional  dele 
gate,  425 ;  elected  Senator  by 
' '  Free-state  ' '  party,  426  ;  contest 
for  seat  in  House  of  Representa 
tives,  432,  433  ;  indictment  against, 
435 ;  avoids  arrest,  435  ;  Donald 
son's  reference  to  his  resistance, 
436 

Representatives,  House  of.  See 
House  of  Representatives 

[Jeffersonian]  Republican  Party,  its 
nationalization,  1-18;  2;  its  prin 
ciples  in  1801  and  1816,  3  ;  position 
on  national  bank,  4,  5  ;  early  prin 
ciples,  17;  division,  38,  103,  104, 
115  ;  absorption  of  Federal  party, 
129;  effect  of  War  of  1812,  130; 
nature  of  the  struggle  of  1824, 130  ; 
division  of  the  party,  145  et  scq.  ; 
effect  of  Panama  Congress,  155 ;  ef 


fect  of  tariff  on  division  of  party, 
157;  power  of  Congress  in  its  re 
gime,  207  ;  principles  on  which  it 
gained  power,  239  ;  effect  of  War  of 
1812,  239 

Republican  Party,  brought  to  life, 
388 ;  creed  in  the  National  Era 
address,  390 ;  effect  of  troubles  in 
Kansas,  417 ;  the  union  of  the 
various  elements,  417,  418 ;  effect 
of  interference  of  Missourians 
in  Kansas,  418;  as  to  possible  ef 
fect  of  events  in  Kansas,  446 ; 
Kansas  assured  to  the  party,  471 
I  Resaca  de  la  Palma,  battle  of,  330 
;  Revenue.  See  Tariff 

Revolution  of  1830,  relation  to  aboli 
tion,  244 

Revolution,  the  American,  slave 
laws  before,  46 ;  effect  upon  sla 
very,  47,  80 

Revolution,  the  French,  47 

Rhea,  John,  31 

Rhett,  Robert  Barnwell,  speech  on 
control  of  Territories,  342,  343, 
345 ;  views  adopted  by  Calhoun 
and  Davis,  344  ;  views  on  fugitive 
slave  law,  367  ;  contention  as  to  fu- 

fitive  slave  law,  371  ;  in  debate  on 
"cote's  resolutions,  374 
•  Rhode   Island,    Commonwealth    of, 
13 ;    legislation     on    slavery,    48 ; 
vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 
I  Richardson,  William  A.,  reports  bill 
on  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  400  ;  mo 
tion   in   House,  403 ;  yields  man 
agement  of  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
to  Stephens,  4U4 

Riley,  Bennett,  calls  California  con 
vention,  353 
Rio  del  Norte  River,  36 
Rio   Grande  River,   297,    300,   305- 
Mexican  troops  on,  328 ;   claimed 
by  Texas  a  boundary,  328 ;  scene 
of  conflict,  329,   330,  331,  332  ;  up 
per  valley  occupied  by  Doniphan, 
332,  337,  338,  354,  361,  363 
Rio  Grande  del  Norte  River,  290,  297 
Rives,  William  Cabell,  view  of  sla 
very,  265-267 

Roberts,  Jonathan,  motion  on  Maine- 
Missouri  bill.  82  ;  position  as  to 
the  bill,  83  ;  moves  to  amend,  83 
I  Robertson,   George,  committee  ser 
vice,  3 

j  Robinson,  Charles,  conference  with 
i      leaders  of  Emigrant  Aid  Company, 


532 


INDEX 


413  ;  expedition  to  Missouri  and 
Kansas,  413,  414  ;  the  founding  of 
Lawrence,  415  ;  criticism  of  Reed- 
er's  action  on  contested  election 
cases,  420,  421 ;  plan  of  procedure 
for  anti-slavery  party  in  Kansas, 
421,  422  ;  sends  for  Sharpe's  rifles, 
423  ;  checks  factions  by  the  Law 
rence  speech,  423,  424 ;  elected 
Governor  of  Kansas,  425  ;  message 
to  legislature,  427  ;  negotiations  j 
with  Shannon,  430  ;  at  Franklin, 
430 ;  communication  with  Sumner 
as  to  assault  on  Jones,  434  ;  indict 
ment  against,  435  ;  opinion  as  to 
purpose  of  Pottawattomie  massa 
cre,  441 ;  his  release  ordered,  446  ; 
plan  to  capture  Territorial  govern 
ment,  463 ;  conference  with  Wil 
son,  463 ;  difficulty  of  the  situa 
tion,  464  ;  his  work  characterized, 
471,  472  ;  his  work  quoted,  473 

Rocky  Mountains,  312,  313,  321,  325, 
326,  381 

Rush,  Benjamin,  proposal  of  Can 
ning,  125 

Russia,  in  the  North  Pacific,  123; 
edict  as  to  northwest  lands,  123 ; 
in  Holy  Alliance,  123,  124; 
Adams's  statement  to  Tuyl,  124, 
125 ;  the  Czar  in  negotiation  with 
Clay,  152,  153 

Russian  American  Company  claims 
in  North  Pacific,  123 

SABINE  RIVER,  the,  33,  36,  290 

St.  Augustine,  25 

St.  Ildefonso,  treaty  of,  23,  23,  24, 
54,  312 

St.  Louis,  65  ;  Branscomb  and  Rob 
inson  at,  413,  414 

St.  Mark's,  25,  32 

St.  Mary's  River,  the,  22,  30 

Salazar,  Jose  Maria,  negotiations  as 
to  Panama  Congress,  147, 148, 149  ; 
cites  Haytian  affairs,  151 

Salt  Creek  Valley,  pro-slavery  con 
vention,  414 

San  Antonio,  battle  of,  334 

Sandf ord,  John  F.  A. ,  owner  of  Dred 
Scott,  451 ;  defendant  in  federal 
courts,  451  et  seq. 

San  Diego.  Cal. ,  occupied  by  Kear- 
ny,  332 

San  Jacinto,  battle  of,  294,  295 

San  Jacinto  River,  294 

Santa  Anna,  Antonio  Lopez  de,  es 


tablishes  presidential  government 
in  Mexico,  292 ;  opposition  in 
Coahuila-Texas,  292 ;  war  of  Texan 
independence,  293,  294 ;  a  prison 
er,  297 ;  in  power  again,  .;32  ;  his 
plan  of  action,  3o2 ;  battle  of 
Buena  Vista,  332,  333;  battle  of 
Cerro  Gordo,  333  ;  battles  of  Con- 
treras,  San  Antonio  and  Cheru- 
busco,  334 

Savannah,  Ga.,  373 

Scott,  Dred,  his  case  as  referred  to 
in  Buchanan's  inaugural  address, 
447,  448 ;  origin  of  the  case,  419, 
450 ;  facts  oE  the  case,  450,  451 ; 
decision  of  Missouri  Supreme 
Court,  451 ;  sold  to  Sandf  ord,  451 ; 
judgment  in  Circuit  Court,  451 ; 
case  before  Supreme  Court,  451  ; 
opinion  of  Justice  Nelson,  452 ; 
opinion  of  Justice  Catron,  453 ; 
opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Taney, 
453,  454  ;  opinion  of  Justice  Curtis, 
454 ;  criticism  of  the  decision,  455  ; 
criticism  of  Taney's  argument,  455, 
456  ;  relation  of  inaugural  and  de 
cision,  456,  457;  opinion  of  Jus 
tice  Curtis,  457,  458  ;  distribution 
of  the  opinions,  458 ;  effect  of  the 
decision,  458,  459 ;  eifect  of  the 
dictum,  460 

Scott,  John,  secures  reference  of 
Missouri  memorials,  74 

Scott,  Martin,  in  Florida,  31 

Scott,  Winfield,  ordered  to  Charles 
ton,  330 ;  his  instructions,  330, 
3ol ;  ordered  against  Vera  Cruz, 
332  ;  captures  Vera  Cruz,  333  ;  bat 
tle  of  Cerro  Gordo,  333 ;  captures 
Jalapa,  Perote,  Puebla,  333 ;  effect 
of  his  successes,  337  ;  Trist  at  his 
head-quarters,  337  ;  battles  of  Mo- 
lino  del  Rey  and  Chapultepec,  338  ; 
takes  Mexico,  338  ;  nominated  for 
presidency,  376  ;  defeated,  377 

Sedgwick,  Major,  accompanies  Shan 
non  to  Lawrence,  444 

Seminole  War,  28,  29,  33;  results, 
38  ;  cabinet  intrigue  on  conduct  of 
war,  220 

Seminoles,  32  ;  treaty  of  1832,  290 ; 
repudiate  treaty  and  are  expelled, 
290 

Senate  of  the  United  States,  passage 
of  Bank  bill,  8;  passage  of  tariff 
bill,  12;  pay  of  members,  16; 
passage  of  internal  improvements 


IXDEX 


533 


bill,  16  ;  action  on  censure  of  Jack 
son,  06  ;  ratifies  treaty  oi'  1819,  30, 
38  ;  effect  of  method  of  represen 
tation  in.  03;  Missouri  bill  referred, 
73 ;  vote  on  Tallmadgc  amend 
ment,  74 ;  disagreement  with 
House,  74  ;  Clay's  suggestion  of 
effect,  75 ;  Maine  and  Missouri 
bills  in,  82,  83;  the  Thomas  amend 
ment,  84  ;  Pinkney's  speecn,  84- 
87 ;  Missouri  -  Maine  bill,  and 
Thomas  amendment,  87,  88  ;  the 
conference  committee,  b8,  89  ;  sig 
nificance  of  the  compromise,  90-95 ; 
Missouri  constitution  considered, 
95,  90 ;  passage  of  Smith  bill  on 
Missouri,  99;  bill  defeated  in 
House,  101 ;  work  of  second  con 
ference  committee,  101-103  ;  plan 
to  alter  judicial  system  and  limit 
number  of  Representatives,  109; 
conference  committee  on  tariff, 
114,  115;  recommendation  of  Cum 
berland  road,  1 16 ;  vote  on  inter 
nal  improvements  bill  of  1822,  118, 
119;  Clinton  a  member  of,  132; 
Crawford  a  member  of,  133;  Clay 
a  member  of,  134  ;  Jackson  a  mem 
ber  of,  13G ;  opposition  to  Clay's 
appointment,  144;  action  on  Pan 
ama  mission,  149, 150;  Van  Buren's 
statement  on  action  of,  153;  Van 
Buren  leader  of  opposition  in,  155  ; 
action  on  tariff  bill,  159,  100;  pas 
sage  of  tariff  bill,  162  ;  South  Car 
olina  memorial  in,  171 ;  Clay's 
proposal  as  to  tariff,  180 ;  speeches 
of  Clay  and  Hayne,  187  ;  vote  on 
House  tariff  bill,  188;  conference 
committee,  188;  Ben  tori's  attack 
on  Bank,  196  ;  report  on  the  Bank, 
198 ;  Ben  ton's  resolution  on  the 
Bank,  199,  200;  relation  of  mem 
bers  to  constituencies,  200 ;  me 
morial  for  recharter  of  Bank,  201  ; 
Benton's  attack  on  Bank,  201  ;  bill 
for  rccharter  passed,  201,  202 ; 
Jackson  on  duty  of  members,  200  ; 
ratifies  Indian  Springs  convention, 
212 ;  Calhoun  takes  Hayne's  seat 
in,  224 ;  Calhoun's  statement  in, 
232,233;  "Force  Bill"  reported, 
233,  234 ;  Clay's  proposition  in, 
235,  230  ;  support  of  Oalhoun,  230  ; 
passage  of  "Force  Bill"  and  of 
tariff  bill,  237  ;  abolition  petitions 
ref  erredv  253 ;  contest  on  right  of 


petition,  264,  265;  Calhoun's 
efforts  as  to  policy  of,  268 ;  inci 
dent  of  the  Vermont  memorial,  269, 
270  ;  reference  of  President's  mes 
sage,  273 ;  Connecticut  memorial 
on  Texas,  295;  Clay  resolutions 
adopted,  295;  Calhouu's  state 
ment,  295,  290  ;  the  Walker  reso 
lution  on  Texas.  298,  299 ;  action 
on  President's  message  as  to  re 
fusals,  298,  299  ;  effect  of  action, 
300 ;  as  to  power  over  treaties,  307, 
308  ;  treaty  with  Texas,  308,  309  ; 
action  as  to  Texas,  322,  323; 
action  as  to  Oregon,  325,  320  ;  bills 
on  Mexico,  and  the  Wilmot  pro 
viso,  335,  336 ;  ratifies  treaties 
with  Mexico,  339 ;  Oregon  bill  in, 
341  ;  action  on  Oregon  bills,  343  ; 
debate  on  Oregon  bill,  344 ;  lack  of 
result,  345;  Bright  and  Clayton 
on  Oregon,  340 ;  passes  Clayton 
bill,  347 ;  final  agreement  with 
House,  347  ;  action  on  erection  of 
California  and  New  Mexico,  349 
et  xeq. ;  Calhoun's  last  speech,  358; 
Webster's  Seventh  of  March 
speech,  359;  action  on  Texan 
boundary,  303,  304  ;  completion  of 
compromise  measures,  363,  364 ; 
action  on  Shadrach  case,  370 ; 
action  on  President's  powers,  371, 
372  ;  Foote's  finality  resolutions, 
374,  375  ;  petitions  to,  375  ;  action 
on  organization  of  Kansas  and  Ne 
braska,  381  et  seq. ;  Atchisou, 
President  pro  tern.,  412;  memo 
rials  from  Kansas,  433  ;  speech  on 
the  "Crime  against  Kansas, "439  ; 
Brooks'  assault,  439,  440  ;  action 
on  Kansas,  409,  470.  See  Congress 
of  the  United  States 
]  Senior,  Nassau  William,  cited,  186 
I  Sergeant,  John,  opposition  to 
Lowndes's  bill,  96,  97;  nominated 
commissioner  to  Panama  Congress, 
149;  nomination  confirmed,  150 
Sewall,  Samuel  E.,  in  Sims  case,  372 
Seward,  William  Henry,  presents 
petitions  for  repeal  of  fugitive 
slftve  law,  375  ;  contest  in  conven 
tion  of  1852,  376  ;  relation  to  Dixon 
and  Nebraska  bill,  387,  388  ;  charge 
as  to  official  conduct  of  Taney,  456 
Shadrach,  escape  to  Canada,  37U ; 
Clay's  motion  and  Fillmore's  mes 
sage,  370,  371 


534 


INDEX 


Shannon,  Wilson,  becomes  Governor 
of  Kansas  Territory,  427  ;  presides 
over  Leavenworth  convention,  428; 
orders  to  Territorial  militia,  429 ; 
meets  Lawrence  committee  at 
Shawnee  Mission,  429 ;  goes  to 
Lawrence,  430 ;  agreement  with 
citizens  of  Lawrence,  430 ;  treats 
with  Missourians  at  Franklin,  430, 
431 ;  report  to  President,  431 ; 
gives  troops  to  Sheriff  Jones,  434; 
dealings  with  citizens  of  Lawrence, 
436,  437 ;  orders  troops  to  the 
Pottawattomie,  441 ;  his  procla 
mation,  442;  orders  troops  out 
under  Sumner,  442 ;  goes  to  Law 
rence,  444 ;  treaty  of  August  17, 
444 ;  resigns  office,  444 

Shaw,  Henry,  voting,  73 

Shawnee  Mission,  Kansas,  removal 
of  legislature  to,  423  ;  arrival  of 
Governor  Shannon,  427  ;  Lawrence 
committee  at,  429 

Sherman,  John,  on  committee  for 
Kansas  investigation,  433 

Shields,  James,  attitude  to  fugitive 
slave  law,  368 

Sierra  Nevada  Mountains,  349 

Silliman,  Benjamin,  member  of  Emi 
grant  Aid  Society,  409 

Silsbee,  Nathaniel,  attitude  to  tariff 
of  1828,  162 

Sims,  Thomas,  arrest,  372  ;  trial  and 
rendition,  372,  373 

Slade,  William,  motion  to  print 
abolition  petitions,  254  ;  compared 
with  Adams,  254 ;  Polk's  ruling 
on  his  attempt  to  debate,  255  ;  his 
motion  tabled,  255  ;  declares  war 
on  slavery,  258;  his  object,  259; 
further  attempt  at  agitation,  262 

Slave  Code,  Virginia  code  of  1705, 
45 

Slavery,  beginnings  in  United  States, 
40 ;  early  view  of  system,  40 ;  le 
gal  recognition,  41  ;  prohibited  in 
Georgia,  43 ;  legislation  in  Vir 
ginia,  43  ;  Virginia  statute  of  1662, 
44,  45  ;  relation  to  Christian  bap 
tism,  44 ;  Virginia  code  of  1705, 
45  ;  legislation  on  public  relations 
of  slavery,  46 ;  law  of  slavery  be 
fore  the  Revolution,  46  ;  substan 
tially  abolished  in  Massachusetts, 
48;  legislation  in  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  New  Hampshire, 
Pennsylvania,  New  York,  New 


Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland  and 
Virginia,  48  ;  letter  of  Luther 
Martin,  49,  50  ;  in  Constitution  of 
1787,  50 ;  status  in  Georgia  and 
North  Carolina  cessions  and  in 
Kentucky,  50,  51,  56;  passage  of 
fugitive  slave  law,  51  ;  abolition 
of  slave  trade  by  Congress,  51  ;  re 
lation  to  cotton  culture,  52,  53  ;  in 
Louisiana  territory,  54,  55,  57,  65, 
72,  88 ;  in  Orleans  Territory,  55 ; 
in  Louisiana  Territory,  55,  56 ;  in 
Missouri  Territory  and  Common 
wealth  of  Missouri,  56,  65 ;  effect 
of  abolition  of  foreign  slave-trade, 

57  ;  domestic  slave-trade,  57,  58 ; 
relation  of  slavery  to  diplomacy, 

58  ;  international  status,  59  ;  rela 
tion  of   slavery  to  public   policy, « 
60 ;    status  in  various  States,  62, 
63 ;  division  of  Congress  on  terri 
torial  basis  as  to  slavery,  63;  in 
the  Territories,  63  ;  in  Northwest 
Territory,   69 ;   in  the   Tallmadge 
amendment,  73  ;  slavery  in  Terri 
tories,  75  ;  Taylor's  plan  as  to  Mis 
souri,  75,  76,  78;  Storrs's  plan  as 
to  Missouri,  78;  Taylor's    motion, 
78  et  *eq.  ;  motion  of  Thomas,  84, 
87,  88  ;  relation  of  slavery  to  Mis 
souri  struggle,   92,   93,    106,   107; 
status   of    slavery  in   1776,    1787, 
1820,  93  ;  slavery  in  national  poli 
tics  after  1820,   108;   relation  of 
slavery  to  protection,  109,  110;  re 
lation  of  slavery  to  Panama  Con 
gress,  151  ;  relation  to  tariff,  157 ; 
relation    to    Maysville    road    bill, 
168  ;  relation  to  internal  improve 
ments,   to  Missouri   struggle,    and 
to   tariff   of    1828,    170;    view  of 
Hayne  and    McDuffie,    177 ;    rela 
tion  to  the   Bank  question,  198; 
effect  of  race  domination,  244;  as 
regarded  before  1830,  244  ;  human- 
itarianism  of  1830,   244  ;  the  phi 
losophy  of  abolition  and  of  its  op 
ponents,  245  ;  the  true  philosophy, 
245,  246  ;  slavery  in  the  Constitu 
tion,  2M-248  ;  possible  ways  of  at 
tacking   slavery,    248 ;  Southamp 
ton  insurrection,  248,  249;  Floyd's 
message,  249    (see  Petition,  Right 
of) ;  declaration  of  war  by  Slade, 
258  ;     the     contest    precipitated, 
260  ;     the    Pinckney    resolutions 
evoked,  261 ;  relation  to  denial  of 


INDEX 


535 


right  of  petition,  263,  264;  views 
of  Rives,  265-207 ;  views  of  Cal- 
houn,  2(35-268  ;  significance  of  the 
contest  over  petitions  and  the 
mails,  274-277;  relation  of  Whig 
principles  to  slavery,  283  ;  relation 
of  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  to 
slavery  extension,  287,  288  ;  slav 
ery  in  Florida  constitution  of  1838, 
290  ;  slavery  in  the  Texas  constitu 
tion  of  1836,  294 ;  relation  of  sla 
very  to  recognition  of  Texas,  296  ; 
relation  of  slavery  to  question  of 
Texan  annexation,  300,  301,  302; 
Clay's  views  of  relation  of  slavery 
and  annexation,  319 ;  relation  of 
slavery  to  Mexican  War,  330,  331  ; 
the  Wilmot  proviso,  335,  336 ; 
Cass's  view  of  relation  of  Mexican 
war  and  slavery,  338  ;  Thompson's 
amendment,  341  ;  Burt's  motion 
as  to  the  Wilmot  proviso,  341,  342 ; 
meaning  of  Rhett's  views,  343 ; 
views  of  Calhoun  and  Davis  as  to 
slavery  in  territories,  344;  Demo 
cratic  platform  of  1848,  344,  345  ; 
Cass's  letter  to  Nicholson,  345 ; 
Whig  platform  of  1848,  345 ;  the 
Clayton  bill,  346,  347;  Free-soil 
platform  of  1848,  347,  348;  as 
to  signature  of  Oregon  bill,  348 ; 
Douglas's  and  Smith's  bills,  349  ; 
Berrien's  report,  349,  350  ;  views 
of  Berrien  and  YVebster  on  slavery 
in  Mexican  acquisitions,  351,  352; 
Taylor's  message  of  December  4, 
1849,  354  ;  indication  of  policy  in 
the  Foote  bill,  354  ;  relation  of 
slavery  to  question  of  Texan 
boundary,  354,  355 ;  question  of 
slavery  in  District  of  Columbia, 
355;  Clay's  plan  of  compromise, 
355,  356 ;  opposition  of  Southern 
ers,  356,  357 ;  attitude  of  Davis, 
and  of  abolitionists,  357 ;  Cal- 
houn's  last  speech,  358  ;  Webster's 
Seventh  of  March  speech,  359 ; 
Clay's  report,  361,  362;  the  bills 
as  adopted,  363,  364 ;  slavery  be 
fore  and  after  1850,  305-307  ;  rela 
tion  of  parties  to  slavery  question, 
877 ;  various  policies  as  to  slavery, 
377-3^9  ;  situation  in  December, 
1852,  380,  381  ;  Douglas's  report  on 
Nebraska,  382-387  ;  dictum  of  the 
committee,  387 ;  Dixon's  motion, 
387 ;  dictum  of  Douglas  as  to  act 


of  1820,  390;  controversy  on  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  390  et  seg.  ; 
speech  of  Houston,  393  ;  the  Na 
tional  Era  address,  399,  400 ;  the 
struggle  for  Kansas,  407  et  seq.  ; 
indications  of  plan  for  extension, 
408  ;  the  question  in  Kansas,  412 ; 
Robinson's  declaration  as  to  slavery 
in  Kansas  and  Missouri,  424 ; 
Kansas  legislation  on  slavery,  424  ; 
its  effect  on  the  North,  424,  425 ; 
the  Topeka  constitution,  425  ;  the 
Dred  Scott  case,  449-459  ;  effect  of 
the  Dred  Scott  dictum,  460; 
further  struggle  in  Kansas,  460- 
474  ;  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
467,  468.  See  Kansas,  Territory 
of 

Slaves,  introduced  at  Jamestown, 
40.  See  Slavery 

Slidell,  John,  sent  to  Mexico,  327  ; 
refused  audience,  and  leaves  Mex 
ico,  328  ;  effect  of  his  rejection, 
329 

Sloat,  John  Drake,  ordered  to  Upper 
California,  331 

Smith,  Caleb  B.,  reports  bills  on 
New  Mexico  and  Upper  California, 
349 

Smith,  Gerrit,  the  "Jerry  rescue," 
374 ;  signs  National  Era  address, 
389 

Smith,  Persifer  Frazer,  assigned  to 
command  in  Kansas,  443  ;  orders 
as  to  invaders  of  Kansas,  445  ; 
sustains  Cooke  in  disobeying 
Wood  son,  445 

Smith,  George  W.,  candidate  for 
Governor  of  Kansas,  468 

Smith,  William,  reports  Maine-Mis 
souri  bill,  82  ;  position  on  the  bill, 
83  ;  presents  bill  to  Senate  on  Mis 
souri,  99 ;  bill  passed  by  Senate 
and  tabled  by  House,  99  ;  presents 
protest  as  to  tariff,  170 

"Softs,"  the,  attitude  of  Pierce, 
402 

Soule,  Pierre,  the  Ostend  manifesto, 
408 

South  Carolina,  8,  9  ;  slave  laws,  46 ; 
repeals  law  against  slave  importa 
tion,  51  ;  as  to  citizen  ship  law,  99; 
protest  against  tariff  of  1824,  115, 
116  ;  attitude  to  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1817,  118;  attitude 
to  internal  improvements  bill  of 
1822, 119  ;  in  election  of  1824,  137, 


536 


INDEX 


138 ;  opposition  to  tariff  bill  of 
1827,  159,  160  ;  legislature  protests 
against  tariff  of  1828,  170,  171,  174;  j 
attitude  to  Jackson's  views,  172; 
relation  to  McDuffie  bill  of  1830, 
174;  attitude  to  McDufhVs  argu 
ment,  176  ;  attitude  to  Congress  in 
1830-31,  178  ;  the  tariff  and  Cal 
houn's  work,  179,  181, 183  ;  nullifi 
cation  or  rebellion,  183  ;  relation 
to  Jackson's  message  of  1831,  184  ; 
stock  held  in  United  States  Bank, 
203  ;  nullification  earlier  in  Geor 
gia,  210;  relation  to  the  Indian 
troubles  in  Georgia,  220 ;  special 
meeting  of  legislature,  221  ;  the 
nullification  convention  and  its 
work,  221 ;  the  ordinance  of  nul 
lification,  222  ;  committee  to  the 
legislature,  223  ;  addresses  of  the 
convention,  223,  224  ;  Hamilton's 
message,  224  ;  Hayne's  inaugural, 
224  ;  the  Replevin  Act,  224-22(5 ; 
change  of  representation  in  Sen 
ate,  224 ;  acts  to  enforce  ordi 
nance  of  nullification,  226  ;  opin-  j 
ion  of  Ualhoun  and  others  as  to 
position  of  South  Carolina,  226- 
228 ;  South  Carolina  in  Jackson's 
message  of  1832,  228  ;  Jackson's 
proclamation  of  December  10, 1832, 
228-230 ;  active  steps  taken  by 
Jackson,  230,  231  ;  feeling  of  the 
other  States,  231  ;  Hayne's  procla 
mation  and  the  action  of  South 
Carolina,  232 ;  Jackson's  message 
of  January,  1833,  232;  Calhoun's 
statement  in  the  Senate,  232,  233 ; 
the  "Force  Bill"  reported,  233, 
234  ;  answers  Replevin  Act,  234  ; 
attitude  of  Calhoun,  234 ;  post 
ponement  of  execution  of  nullifica 
tion  ordinance,  235 ;  Bell's  report 
on  President's  powers,  235 ;  Clay's 
proposals,  235,  236 ;  attitude  of 
Calhoun,  236,  237;  attitude  to 
Clay's  bill,  237,  238  ;  ordinance  of 
nullification  withdrawn,  238;  mo 
tive  of  leaders  in  affairs  of  nullifi 
cation,  238 ;  effect  of  nullification 
considered,  238-241  ;  opinion  of 
Jacksonian  principles,  240  ;  con 
vention  in,  375  ;  vote  on  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  399  ;  demands  of 
South  Carolinians  in  Kansas,  437; 
the  assault  upon  Sumner,  439 
South  Carolina  College,  173 


"South  Carolina  Exposition,  The," 
179 

South  Sea,  the,  33 

Southampton  County,  Virginia,  slave 
insurrection,  248,  249;  Floyd's 
message,  249 ;  passed  over,  250 ; 
effect  on  consideration  of  abolition 
petitions,  252 

"Southern  Address."  the,  374 

Spain,  as  to  American  possessions, 
20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  25,  29,  30,  32,  33, 
35,  36 ;  cedes  Louisiana  territory, 
54,  65 ;  claims  in  North  Pacific, 
123 ;  relation  to  colonies  and  to 
Congress  of  Verona,  1 24  ;  attitude 
of  Great  Britain  and  United  States 
as  to  her  colonies,  125  ;  the  "  Mon 
roe  Doctrine,"  125-128  ;  Clay's  at 
titude  to  Spain's  colonies,  135,  152, 
153  ;  trouble  in  the  colonies,  147, 
151-153 ;  boundary  disputes  with 
France  and  United  States,  290; 
treaty  of  1819,  290;  revolt  of 
Mexico,  291;  claim  to  Oregon,  311  ; 
the  Nootka  Convention,  311,  312  ; 
effect  of  war  with  Great  Britain, 
312;  ceiies  Louisiana  to  France, 
312  ;  cedes  Florida,  313  ;  treaty  of 
1819,  318 

Spalding,  Henry  Harmon,  mission 
ary  to  Oregon,  315 

Spanish  Government,  37 

Spear,  Samuel  T.,  opposes  fugitive 
slave  law,  368 

"  Specie  Circular,"  its  results,  283 

Squatter  Sovereign,  the,  misrepre 
sentations  as  to  Emigrant  Aid 
Company,  411 

Stan  ton,  F.  P.,  appointed  secretary 
of  Kansas  Territory,  461 ;  as  Acting 
Governor,  negotiates  with  u  Free- 
state  "  men,  461,  462  ;  action  on 
fraudulent  elections,  465;  de 
mands  of  "Free-state  men,  466, 
467  ;  calls  legislature  at  Lecomp- 
ton,  467 ;  removed,  467 

"States'  rights"  founder  of  party, 
2 ;  position  of  Webster,  6 ;  early 
condition  of  party,  122  ;  nucleus  of 
party,  146;  Calhoun's  doctrine, 
179  et  seq.;  as  to  the  Bank,  194, 
195;  Benton's  speech,  199;  Troup's 
attitude,  213;  Calhoun's  position, 
234,  236,  268,  269,  270;  King's 
views,  269,  270  ;  and  see  3,  49,  109, 
130,  136,  137,  159,  192,  215,  217, 
274 


INDEX 


537 


Stearns,  ,  sells  rights  to  site  of 

Lawrence,  415 

Stephens,  Alexander  Hamilton,  man 
agement  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  404 

Stockton,  Robert  Field,  ordered  to 
Upper  California,  331 

Storrs,  Henry  R.,  voting,  73;  on 
Missouri  affair,  78 

Storrs,  Richard  Salter,  opposes  fugi 
tive  slave  law,  368 

Strange,  Robert,  motion  in  Senate, 
270 

Stringfellow,     B.     F.,    coeditor    of 
Sq  tatter  Sovereign,   411  ;   forma-  ! 
tion   of    "  Platte  County  Self-de-  | 
fensive  Association,"  414 

Sullivan,  G.,  interview  with  Adams,  i 
142,  143 

Sumner,   Edwin   Vose,    communica 
tion  with  Robinson  as  to  assault  on  j 
Jones,   434 ;    conditional    offer   of  j 
Lawrence    citizens    to    surrender  i 
arms  to,  437 ;  rescues  Pate,  442 ; 
returns  to  Fort  Leavenworth,  442 ; 
disperses    legislature    at    Topeka, 
443  ;  his  act  disapproved,  443  ;  re 
tirement,  443  ;  attitude  to  Kansas 
affairs,  472 

Sumner,  Charles,  presents  petitions 
for  repeal  of  fugitive  slave  law, 
375 ;  speech  on  fugitive  slave 
law,  377 ;  effort  to  improve  Ne 
braska  bill,  388 ;  signs  National 
Era  address,  389  ;  vote  on  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  399  ;  speech  on  the  j 
''Crime  against  Kansas,"  439; 
assaulted  by  Brooks,  439,  440  ;  ef 
fect  of  assault  modified  by  Potta- 
wattomie  massacres,  442 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
decisions  by  :  Brown  vs.  Maryland, 
195,  198  ;  McCulloch  vs.  Maryland, 
205;  Cherokee  Nation  case,  218; 
Worcester  vs.  Georgia,  218,  219; 
see  also  109,  207,  222,  229,  34(5, 
318,  366,  383,  427,  447,  460  ;  Prigg 
vs.  Pennsylvania,  363 ;  Dred  Scott 
vs.  Sandford,  447,  449,  et  seq. 

Sutter  land  claims,  war  against,  413 

Swift,  Benjamin,  presents  abolition 
petition,  269;  motion  to  lay  on 
table,  270 

Syracuse,  New  York,  meetings  on 
fugitive  slave  law,  068  ;  the  u  Jerry 
rescue,"  373,  374 


TACUBAYA,  153 

Tait,  Charles,  report,  74 

Tallmadge,  James,  34 ;  amendment 
to  Missouri  bill,  66-74 ;  leader  of 
restrictionists,  68 

Taney,  Roger  Brooke,  appointed 
secretary  of  the  treasury,  280 ; 
ceases  deposits  in  United  States 
Bank,  280;  the  contention  as  to 
propriety  and  legality,  280,  281  ; 
criticism  by  the  Senate,  281  ; 
opinion  on  Dred  Scott  case,  453, 
454 ;  criticism  of  his  argument, 
455,  456 ;  charge  as  to  divulging 
court  secrets,  456,  457 

Tappan,  S.  F.,  resists  Sheriff  Jones, 
434 

Tariff,  bill  of  1816,  3,  8,  9, 10  ;  views 
of  Clay,  10 ;  speech  of  Calhoun, 
10,  11,  12;  passed  by  House  and 
Senate,  12 ;  attitude  of  Randolph 
and  Telfair,  and  the  New  England- 
ers,  12  ;  act  under  comparison,  15, 
16;  Monroe's  messages  of  Ib21  and 
1822,  110;  bill  of  1823,  110,  111; 
failure  of  the  bill,  111 ;  Monroe's 
message  of  1823,  111;  bill  of  1824, 
112;  support  of  Tod,  112,  and  of 
Ciay,  112,  113;  opposition  of 
Webster,  Cambreleng  and  Bar- 
bour,  113,  114;  Hayne's  theory, 
114  ;  modified  bill  passed  by 
House,  114;  House  rejects  Senate 
amendments,  114;  conference  com 
mittee,  114,  115  ;  characterization 
of  tariff  of  1827,  115 ;  attitude  of 
various  States  toward  tariff  of 
1824,  115  ;  protest  of  South  Caro 
lina,  115,  116;  significance  of  the 
question,  129  ;  relation  to  slavery, 
157;  act  of  1824  a  failure,  157; 
memorials,  158;  Mallary  bill  of 

1827,  158;  provisions,    158;    atti 
tude  of  the  various  sections,  158, 
159;   bill  passed  by  House,  159; 
opposition     of     South     Carolina, 
159,  160  ;  bill  abandoned  in  Sen 
ate,   160;    bill   of  1828    reported, 
160;  its  provisions,  160;    opposed 
and  modified,    160,   161;    analysis 
of  vote  in  House,  162  ;  passed  by 
Senate   and  approved,  162;    rela 
tion  to  party  lines,  162, 163  ;  South 
Carolina    protests  against  bill   of 

1828,  170,  171,  174;  Jackson's  mes 
sage  of   December,  1829,  171,  112  ; 
its  reception  in  South  Carolina, 


538 


INDEX 


173  ;  its  reference,  1 72  ;  question 
of  origin  of  tariff  bills,  173,  174 ; 
bill  reported  by  McDuffie,  174  ;  its 
terms  and  disposal,  174  ;  manufact 
ures  committee  bill,  175 ;  argu 
ment  of  McDuffie,  175,  176,  177 ; 
passage  of  bills  of  1830,  177,  178  ; 
Jackson's  message  of  December, 
1830,  178;  the  work  of  Calhoun, 
179-181,  183;  the  law  in  court, 
182,  183;  Jackson's  message  of 
December,  1831,  184  ;  two  bills  of 
1832,  185 ;  disposal  in  House,  186  ; 
Clay's  resolution  in  Senate,  186, 

187,  188;    House  bill  in  Senate, 
188;    amended  and  passed,   188; 
distribution  of  vote  in  Senate,  188  ; 
conference  and  bill  becomes  law, 
188;  its   effect   on    the   situation, 

188,  189;    proposal  in  address  of 
South   Carolina   convention,  2,24 ; 
Jackson's    message  of   December, 

1832,  228;  bill  reported  by  Ver- 
planck,    231 ,   232 ;    discussion    of 
Verplanck    bill,    235;     Clay    pro 
poses  compromise  tariff,   235 ;  his 
purposes,   235,    236;    attitude    of 
Calhoun,    236  ;    controversy    over 
the  bill,  236 ;  Clay's  bill  amended 
and   substituted   for   Verplanck's 
bill,  237 ;  attitude  of  South  Car 
olina,   238 ;    President's  approval, 
23S ;    result  of    modified   bill    of 

1833,  283;    tariff  bills  vetoed  by 
Tyler,  286 

Tassells,  Cherokee  Indian,  executed, 
218 

Taylor,  John,  supports  Bank  bill,  8  ; 
presides  over  Columbia  conven 
tion,  159 

Taylor,  John  W.,  in  Missouri  bill  de 
bate,  68 ;  plan  as  to  Missouri,  75, 
76,  78  ;  new  motion  and  argument, 
78  et  seq. ;  on  conference  committee, 
88 ;  attitude  toward  internal  im 
provements  bill  of  1822,  119;  vote 
upon  Maysville  road  bill,  168 

Taylor,  Zachary,  ordered  to  advance 
from  Corpus  Christi,  329  ;  demand 
of  Ampudia,  3:29 ;  hostilities  be 
gun,  329  ;  battles  of  Palo  Alto  and 
Resaca  de  la  Palma,  329,  330 ;  oc 
cupies  Matamoras,  331 ;  takes 
Monterey,  331,  332;  battle  of 
Buena  Vista,  332,  333 ;  battles  of 
Contreras,  San  Antonio,  and  Che- 
rubusco,  334 ;  armistice,  334 ; 


presidential  nominee,  345 ;  elected 
President,  349  ;  plan  as  to  Cali 
fornia,  353  ;  message  of  December 
4,  1849,  353,  354 ;  special  message 
under  consideration,  357,  358 ; 
death,  362 

Tehuantepec,  Isthmus  of,  337 

Telfair,  Thomas,  opposition  to  tariff 
of  1816,  12 

Tennessee,  31,  32,  35 ;  created  a  Com 
monwealth,  51 ;  with  slavery,  62, 
63 ;  attitude  to  internal  improve 
ments  bill  of  1817,  118 ;  attitude 
to  internal  improvements  bill  of 
1822,  119 ;  legislature  nominates 
Jackson  for  the  presidency,  136  ; 
electoral  vote  in  1844,  320  ;  vote  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Territorial  extension,  position  of 
Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  287, 
288 

Texas,  early  boundary  dispute,  290; 
Austin  grant,  291 ;  efforts  of 
United  States  to  buy  Texas,  292 ; 
declares  independence,  293 ;  the 
Mexicans  defeated,  294 ;  consti 
tution  formed  and  Houston  elected 
President,  294 ;  the  Connecticut 
resolution,  295  ;  the  Senate's  reso 
lution,  295 ;  Calhoun's  position, 
295,  296  ;  House  passes  resolution, 
296;  Morfit's  mission,  296-298; 
Jackson's  message  of  December 
21,  1836,  298;  Walker's  resolution, 
298 ;  Jackson's  special  message  as 
to  reprisals,  298;  Walker  resolu 
tion  adopted,  "291) ;  Texas  in  diplo 
matic  appropriation  bill,  299 ; 
Jackson  deals  with  agent  of  Texas, 
300;  Texan  independence  recog 
nized,  300;  the  question  of  an 
nexation,  300,  301  ;  Wise's  doc 
trine  as  to  annexation,  302  ;  Whig 
address  on  annexation,  303 ;  ne 
gotiations  of  Upshur  and  Van 
Zandt,  304 ;  independence  recog 
nized  by  Powers,  304 ;  possibility 
of  British  interference,  304;  rela 
tions  to  Mexico,  305,  306 ;  pro 
posal  of  annexation,  305;  legal 
position,  306  ;  Murphy's  assurance 
to  President  of  Texas,  306  ;  Hous 
ton  sends  special  envoy  to  Wash 
ington,  306  ;  Murphy's  assurance 
disavowed,  307 :  President's  pro 
posal  to  move  forces,  307 ;  Texas 
treaty  sent  to  Senate,  307,  308; 


IKDEX 


539 


President's  view  of  constitutional 
position  of  Texas,  308 ;  treaty  re 
jected  by  Senate,  308;  Benton's 
claim,  308;  opposition  of  Archer, 
308,  309;  "  reannexation  "  in  the 
Democratic  platform,  309  ;  docu 
ments  sent  to  House,  309,  310  ;  in 
Democratic  platform  of  1844,  316, 
317,  318 ;  the  Clay  letters,  319  ;  de 
mands  of  abolitionists,  319;  the 
National  Intelligencer  letter,  319, 
320 ;  relation  to  annexation  of 
election  of  Polk,  320;  Greeley's 
views  as  to  triumph  of  annexation, 
320;  Tyler's  message  of  1844,  320, 
321  ;  Ingersoll  reports  joint  resolu 
tion,  321 ;  various  views  as  to  meth 
od  of  annexation,  321,  322;  House  ! 
passes  enabling  act,  322 ;  the  ! 
Archer  report  in  the  Senate,  822,  1 
323  ;  the  Walker  amendment,  323  ;  ; 
measure  signed  by  President,  323 ;  { 
Texas  admitted,  '323  ;  annexation  ; 
a  casus  belli  for  Mexico,  327 ; 
Texas  congress  of  December' 
183(5,  323;  the  Rio  Grande  as 
boundary,  328  ;  President's  duty  as 
to  Texan  boundary,  329 ;  Con 
gressional  acts  as  to  Corpus  Christi,  i 
329;  importance  of  Buena  Vista,  j 
333  ;  problem  of  Texan  boundary,  ! 
354,  355;  Clay's  plan,  355,  35(5 ;  j 
opposition  of  Southerners,  356,  | 
357  ;  attitude  of  abolitionists,  357  ;  \ 
Webster's  Seventh  of  March 
speech,  359 ;  Clay's  report,  361  ; 
extension  of  jurisdiction  by  Bell, 
362,  363;  passage  of  bill  as  to 
Texan  boundary,  363,  364  ;  dictum 
of  Douglas  as  to  annexation  of 
Texas,  390;  vote  on  Kansas- Ne 
braska  bill,  399.  See  also  Coahuila- 
Texas 

Thayer,  Eli,  beginning  of  his  work, 
408,  409  ;  his  reasoning,   409 ;   or 
ganization  effected,   409,  410  ;  in 
corporation,  410,  41 1 ;  conference 
with   Robinson,    413;   reward  of 
fered  for  his  head,  413;  sending  of 
Sharpe's  rifles,  423 
Thomas,    Jesse    B.,    motion    as    to  I 
slavery,  84,  87,  88 ;  on  conference 
committee,  88 

Thompson,   James,    moves    amend 
ment  to  Oregon  bill,  341 ;    amend 
ment  in  Douglas  bill,  341 
Thompson,  Waddy,  as  minister   to 


Mexico  receives  threat  of  war,  305 ; 
opinion  on  slavery  extension,  330 

Titus,  Colonel,  in  troubles  at  Law 
rence,  437 ;  captured,  444 ;  his 
release  promised,  444 

Tod,  John,  reports  tariff  bill,  110; 
bill  fails,  111  ;  reports  tariff  bill  of 
1824,  112;  supports  the  bill,  112 

Tomlinson,  Gideon,  opposes  report 
of  Committee  of  Thirteen,  101 

Topeka,     Kansas,     convention     at, 

10"        /„  


425  (see  Kansas,  Territory  of)  ; 
legislature  at,  dispersed,  443 ; 
Cooke  refuses  to  obey  Woodson's 
order  to  attack  Topeka,  445  ;  mass- 
meeting  at,  464 

Topliff,  C.  W.,  dealings  with  Donald 
son  for  Lawrence  citizens,  438 

Treaty   of  April  11,  1713  (Utrecht), 

Treaty  of  17fi2,  between  France  and 

Spain,  21,  22,  23 
Treaty  of  Paris,  February  10,  1763, 

between  France,  Great  Britain,  and 

Spain,  20,  21,  22,  23 
Treaty  of  Paris,  September  3,  1783, 

Treaty  of  1790  (Nootka  Conven 
tion),  between  Great  Britain  and 
Russia,  311 

Treaty  of  1800  (St.  Ildefonso),  be 
tween  France  and  Spain,  22,  23,  24, 
54,  312 

Treaty  of  April  30,  1803,  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  23, 
24,  55,  57,  72.  312,  318 

Treaty  of  Fort  Jackson.  1814,  26,  29 

Treaty  of  December  24,  1814,  be 
tween  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  9,  26 

[Convention]  of  October  20,  1818, 
between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  313,  314 

Treaty  of  February  22,  1819,  between 
Spain  and  the  United  States,  33, 
36,  37,  38,  290,  313,  318 

Treaty  of  July  12,  1823,  between 
Colombia  and  Peru,  147 

Treaty  of  July  12,  1823,  between 
Colombia  and  Chili,  147 

Treaty  of  February  12,  1825,  between 
United  States  and  Creek  Indians, 
212,  214 

Treaty  of  April  12,  1825,  between 
Colombia  and  United  Provinces  of 
Central  America,  147 


540 


INDEX 


Treaty  of  September  20,  1825,  be 
tween  Colombia  and  Mexico,  147 

Treaty  of  January,  182(5,  between 
United  States  and  Creek  Indians, 

[Convention]  of  August  6,  1827,  be 
tween  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  314,  324 

Treaty  of  1832,  between  United 
States  and  Seminole  Indians,  290 

[Treaty]  of  April  11,  1839,  between 
Mexico  and  the  United  States,  301 

Treaty  of  August  9,  1S42,  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  303 

Treaty  of  April  12,  1844,  between 
Texas  and  the  United  States,  307, 
308,  309 

Treaty  of  June  15,  1846,  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  32(5,  330 

Treaty  of  February  2,  1848,  between 
Mexico  and  the  United  States,  338, 
339,  354,  355 

Tremont  Temple,  fugitive  slave  law 
meetings,  373 

Trist,  Nicholas  P.,  offers  treaty  to 
Mexico,  337 ;  proposals  rejected, 
337 ;  signs  treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo,  338  ;  returns  to  Wash 
ington,  338,  339 

Troup,  George  Mclntosh,  attempts 
survey  of  Creek  land,  212 ;  letter 
from" Barbour,  212,  213;  contro 
versy  with  Barbour  and  Adams, 
213,  214  ;  repudiates  agreement  of 
1826,  214;  controversy  with  Ad 
ministration  as  to  surveys,  214, 
215 ;  his  message  to  the  legislat- 
iu-e,  215 

Tucker,  George,  committee  service, 
3 

Turks,  45 

Turner,  Nat,  leads  slave  insurrec 
tion,  249 

Tuyl,  Baron,  declaration  from 
Adams,  124,  125 

Tyler,  John,  succeeds  Harrison,  286  ; 
vetoes  bank  bills  and  tariff  bills, 
286;  Cabinet  resignations,  286, 
287  ;  friction  with  Whigs,  287  ;  ac 
cession  to  presidency,  301 ;  opens 
negotiations  with  Texas,  301  ;  rela 
tion  to  annexation,  30'3  ;  resigna 
tion  of  Webster,  303  ;  makes  Up- 
shur  secretary  of  state,  303,  304  ; 
the  London  story  of  interference 


in  Texas,  304  ;  attitude  to  Mexican 
threat  of  war,  305  ;  relation  to 
Texan  negotiation,  307  ;  as  to  de 
fence  of  Texas,  307  ;  sends  treaty 
to  Senate,  307,  308  ;  view  of  con 
stitutional  position  of  Texas,  308  ; 
significance  of  Archer's  criticism 
of  annexation  treaty,  309  ;  sends 
Texas  documents  to  House,  309, 
310  ;  relations  with  Whitman,  315, 
316  ;  message  of  1844,  320.  321  ; 
views  as  to  method  of  annexation, 
321  ;  signs  measure  for  annexation 
of  Texas,  323  ;  characterization  of 
his  acts,  323,  324 

"  UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN,"  106 

"  Underground,"  the,  established, 
368.  tiee  Fugitive  Slave  Law 

United  Provinces  of  Central  Amer 
ica,  treaty  of  1825,  with  Colombia, 
147 

United  States  Bank.  See  Bank  of 
the  United  States 

United  States  of  America,  the,  effect 
of  military  statutes,  13  ;  national 
spirit  in,  19;  territorial  extension 
of,  20 ;  independence  recognized, 
22 ;  purchase  of  Louisiana,  23 ; 
claims  on  Florida,  23,  24 ;  occupa 
tion  of  Florida,  24,  25;  effect  of 
treaty  of  Ghent,  2(5 ;  affair  at 
Nicholls  Fort,  27,  28 ;  character  of 
Seminole  War,  39,  30 ;  relations 
with  Spain  as  to  occupation  of 
Florida,  32,  33  ;  treaty  with  Spain, 
33,  36,  37,  38  ;  transfer  of  Florida, 
38;  slavery  in,  40,  50,  52,  5:J ; 
treaty  of  1803,  55 ;  obligations  to 
Georgia  and  North  Carolina,  5(5, 
and  to  France,  57 ;  attitude  to 
slavery,  58,  59,  60,  62-65  ;  debate 
on  powers  of  general  Government, 
66  et  scq.  ;  Taylor's  discussion  of 
powers,  79,  80 ;  federal  system  oE 
1820,  87  ;  nature  of  the  Union,  07  ; 
effect  of  second  Missouri  compro 
mise,  103  ;  significance  of  the  com 
promise,  104-106;  commercial  posi 
tion,  112,  113  ;  foreign  relations  of, 
in  1822,  122;  claims  in  the  North 
Pacific,  123;  relation  to  Spain's 
American  possessions,  124  ft  scq.  ; 
attitude  to  Holy  Alliance,  124  et 
seq.  ;  relations  with  Spanish-Am 
erican  states,  146  et  seq.  ;  consti 
tutional  interpretation  in  the  his- 


INDEX 


541 


tory  cf,  156  ;  relations  with  Great 
Britain,  164;  railroads  in,  169; 
tariff  the  necessary  policy  of,  171 ; 
statistics  from  foreign  trade  of, 
175,  176;  meaning  of  the  term, 
180;  regard  for  laws  of,  181; 
danger  of  bank  to,  202  ;  Jackson's 
view  considered,  203 ;  as  to  veto 
power,  207 ;  effect  of  Jackson's 
bank  veto,  207-209 ;  cession  by 
Georgia  to,  211  ;  treaty  with  Creek 
Indians,  212 ;  dispute  as  to  title, 
213 ;  treaty  with  Creek  Indians, 
214 ;  trouble  with  Georgia,  214 
et  seq.  ;  the  issue  as  offered  by 
South  Carolina,  226 ;  principle 
of  the  governmental  system  of, 
227  ;  the  time  for  a  revenue  tariff, 
228 ;  Jackson  on  the  character  of 
the  Union,  2:39 ;  officers  of,  in 
South  Carolina,  230  ;  resistance  to 
laws  checked,  234  ;  effect  of  events 
of  1832  and  1833,  238-241 ;  devel 
opment  of  national  purposes,  243, 
244  ;  abolition  and  opinion  of  sla 
very  in,  244 ;  contest  over  use  of 
mails  of,  270  et  seq. ;  disputes  as 
to  deposits  of,  280  et  seq.  ;  treaty 
with  Seminoles,  290 ;  recognition 
of  Spanish  rights,  290 ;  immigra 
tion  into  Texas  from,  forbidden, 
291  ;  attempts  to  purchase  Texas, 
292;  importation  of  slaves  into 
Texas  from,  allowed,  294;  as  to 
recognition  of  Texan  indepen 
dence  by,  295,  296  ;  Morfits  report 
on  Texas,  297  ;  question  of  natural 
boundaries,  300,  301  ;  annexation 
of  Texas  proposed,  301 ;  diplomat 
ic  relations  with  Mexico,  3Ul,  302  ; 
recognition  of  Texan  independence 
by,  304  ;  relations  with  Mexico  and 
Texas,  305  et  seq.  ;  as  to  admission 
of  Texas,  310;  purchase  of  Loui 
siana,  312;  claims  in  Oregon,  312, 
313  ;  conventions  with  Great  Brit 
ain,  313,  314 ;  Oregon  and  Great 
Britain,  314  et  seq.  ;  as  to  claim  on 
Texas  and  Oregon,  818;  Clay's 
views  as  to  policy  of,  31 9,  320  ;  re 
lations  with  Mexico,  320,  321 ;  as 
to  annexation  of  Texas,  321  ;  as  to 
method  of  annexation  to,  323,  324 ; 
claims  to  Oregon,  324  et  seq.  ;  ne 
gotiations  with  Great  Britain,  3'36 ; 
suspension  of  diplomatic  relations 
with  Mexico,  327 ;  mission  to  Mex 


ico,  328 ;  question  of  the  Texan 
frontier,  328,  329;  relations  with 
Mexico,  329  et  seq.  ;  military  pow 
er  in  California,  332;  the  Trist 
mission,  337,  338 ;  treaty  with 
Mexico,  338  ;  Rhett  on  the  nature 
of  the  union,  342,  343 ;  extension 
of  public  law  of,  352 ;  relations  to 
Cuba,  408 ;  relation  to  affairs  in 
Kansas,  445  et  seq. 

Upham,  William,  introduces  amend 
ment,  338 ;  opposition  of  Cass 
and  rejection,  338 

Upper  California,  to  be  occupied  to 
Sloat  and  Stockton,  331  ;  treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  338 ;  Smith's 
bill,  349.  See  California 

Upshur,  Abel  P.s  made  secretary  of 
state,  c03,  304 ;  negotiations  with 
Van  Zandt,  304  ;  letter  to  Murphy, 
304 ;  formally  proposed  annexa 
tion,  305 ;  demand  from  Van 
Zandt,  306;  relation  to  Murphy's 
promise,  306  ;  death,  306 

Utah,  Fopte's  bill  for  territorial  or 
ganization,  254 ;  report  of  com 
mittee  on  territories,  360;  Com 
mittee  of  Thirteen,  300;  Clay's 
report,  360,  361 ;  bill  as  to  Utah 
passed,  302  ;  as  to  the  Douglas  re 
port  on  Nebraska,  384;  Chase  on 
Act  of  1850,  391 

Utrecht,  treaty  of,  312 

VAN  BCREN,  MARTIN,  relation  to 
Crawford,  133 ;  attitude  toward 
civil  service  reform,  133  ;  in  elec 
tion  of  1824,  137;  attitude  upon 
Panama  Congress,  153  ;  opposition 
to  Adams  on  internal  improve 
ments,  155 ;  share  in  election  of 
1828,  164  ;  made  secretary  of  state, 
164;  hia  success  in  diplomacy,  164 ; 
relation  of  Administration  to  the 
financial  situation,  284  ;  message  of 
September  4,  1837,  284,  285  ;  origin 
of  independent  treasury  idea,  285  ; 
Van  Buren's  recommendation  and 
the  law  of  July  4,  1840,  285,  286  ; 
declines  proposition  of  Texan  an 
nexation,  301 ;  resumed  diplomatic 
relations  with  Mexico,  301 ;  treaty 
proclaimed,  301,  302  ;  put  aside  by 
his  party,  309;  nominated  for 
presidency,  347 ;  popular  vote  in 
1848  compared  with  that  for  Hale 
in  1852,  377 


542 


INDEX 


Vanderpoel,  Aaron,  motion  in 
House,  255 

Van  Zandt,  Isaac,  negotiations  with 
Upshur,  304  ;  proposal  of  Upshur, 
305  ;  demand  upon  Upshur,  306 

Venezuela,  30 

Vera  Cruz,  campaign  against,  or 
dered,  332  ;  captured  by  Scott,  333 

Vermont,  slavery  forbidden,  62,  63  ; 
Rev.  S.  A.  Worcester,  of,  218; 
abolition  petition,  265,  269 ;  posi 
tion  of  Calhoun,  270 ;  disposal  of 
Swift's  motion,  270 ;  vacancy  in 
Senate  delegation,  398;  vote  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

Verona,  Congress  of,  12  i 

Verplanck,  (Julian  Crommelin,  re 
ports  tariff  bill,  231,  232  ;  bill  dis 
cussed,  235  ;  bill  used  in  argument, 
236;  Clay's  bill  substituted  for 
Verplanck's  bill,  237 

Virginia,  Commonwealth  of,  8, 
41  ;  legislation  on  slavery,  43 ; 
statute  of  1662,  44,  45;  slave 
code  of  1705,  45 ;  legislation  on 
public  elements  of  slavery,  46  ; 
forbids  importation  of  slaves,  48  ; 
domestic  slave-trade,  57,  58  ;  as  a 
type,  86  ;  relation  to  Cumberland 
road,  116 ;  attitude  to  internal 
improvements  bill  of  1817,  117; 
attitude  to  improvements  bill  of 
1822,  119;  stock  held  in  United 
States  Bank,  203;  relation  to 
slavery  in  District  of  Columbia, 
253 ;  anticipated  by  Connecticut 
in  recognizing  Texas,  295  ;  views 
as  to  policies  on  slavery,  378 ;  vote 
on  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  399 

"  Virginia  dynasty,"  the,  extinct,131 

Vives,  Francisco  D.,  37 

WADE,  EDWARD,  signs  National 
Era  address,  389;  opposition  to 
Douglas,  391 

Wakarusa  River,  the,  settlement 
near,  414  ;  Missourians  on,  429 

Walker,  Isaac  P.,  motion  as  to  Mex 
ican  acquisitions,  350,  351  ;  declar 
ation  as  to  repeal  of  act  of  1820, 
395 

Walker,  Robert  John,  offers  resolu 
tion  as  to  Texas,  298 ;  adopted, 
299  ;  offers  amendment  to  Texas 
resolution,  323 ;  appointed  Gov 
ernor  of  Kansas  Territory,  461  ; 
his  address,  462 ;  party  relations, 


462  ;  declaration  as  to  law  control 
ling  territorial  election,  464 ;  ac 
tion  on  fraudulent  elections,  465 

Walker,  Samuel,  in  command  of 
"Free-state"  forces  in  Kansas, 
444 

Walla  Walla,  mission  on  the,  315, 
316 

War  of  1812,  1,  5,  8,  9,  13,  17,  24,  25, 
28,  29,  33,  54,_58,  59;  effect  upon 
political  parties,  130 ;  effect  on 
Republican  party,  239  ;  as  to  As 
toria,  313 

War  with  Mexico,  a  result  of  social 
development,  277 ;  relation  of  war 
to  election  of  Polk,  320 ;  details, 
327  et  seq. ;  the  casus  belli,  327  ;  the 
concentration  of  forces,  328  ;  point 
of  conflict,  328,  329 ;  beginning  of 
hostilities,  329;  battles  of  Palo 
Alto  and  Resaca  de  la  Palma,  329, 
330 ;  attitude  of  parties  to  war, 
330  ;  character  of  war,  330,  331 ; 
Congress  authorizes  war,  331 ;  oc 
cupation  of  New  Mexico  and  Up 
per  California,  331 ;  capture  of 
Monterey,  331,  332  ;  seizure  of  Cali 
fornia,,  332  ;  return  of  Santa  Anna 
and  plans  against  Vera  Cruz,  332  ; 
battle  of  Buena  Vista,  333,  333 ; 
capture  of  Vera  Cruz,  333  ;  battle 
of  Cerro  Gordo,  338  ;  capture  of 
Jaiapa,  Perote,  and  Puebla,  333; 
battles  of  Contreras,  San  Antonio, 
and  Cherubusco,  334 ;  armistice, 
334  ;  Cass's  view  of  relation  of  the 
war  and  slavery,  338 ;  battles  of 
Molino  del  Rey  and  Chapultepec, 
338 ;  capture  of  Mexico,  338 ;  op 
position  to  the  Avar,  338  ;  treaty  of 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  338 

War  of  1861,  an  historical  necessity, 
65  ;  a  result  of  social  development, 
277  ;  relation  of  events  in  Kansas 
to,  473,  474 

War  Department,  28,  30,  31,  32,  35 

Warrenton,  Virginia,  138 

Washington,  D.  C.,  2,  33,  124,  299, 
300,  301,  302,  304,  307,  313,  315,  327, 
330,  339,  375,  389,  401,  426,  428, 
439 

Washington  Hall,  fugitive  slave  law 
meetings,  373 

Washington  Union,  the,  relation  to 
President  Pierce,  401,  402 

Webb,  James  Watson,  applies  name 
to  Whig  party,  281,  283 


INDEX 


543 


Webster,  Daniel,  objection  to  Bank 
bill,  6  ;  as  to  tariff  bill,  12  ;  quali 
fications  as  presidential  candidate 
in  1824,  134,  136;  attitude  to  tariff 
of  1838,  162;  Calhoun  and  the 
Hayne  debate,  179 ;  relation  to 
Jackson  and  the  Bank,  191  ;  ad 
vice  to  Bank  party,  201  ;  on  Bank 
committee  of  Senate,  301 ;  answers 
Calhoun's  argument,  237;  retires 
from  Tyler's  cabinet,  286,  287; 
New  York  speech  on  Texas,  301 ; 
checks  annexation  plans,  303 ;  re 
signs  from  State  Department,  303 ; 
the  Ashburton  treaty,  303  ;  negoti 
ation  with  Ashburton,  314;  views 
on  slavery  in  Mexican  acquisitions, 
351,  352  ;  Seventh  of  March  speech, 
359 ;  on  Committee  or  Thirteen, 
360  ;  attitude  to  fugitive  slave  law, 
368  ;  denounced  by  Giddings,  369  ; 
contest  in  Whig  convention  of 
1852,  376  ;  death,  377 

Webster,  Sidney,  statement  as  to 
position  of  Washington  Union, 
401,402 

Welles,  Gideon,  Blair  to  Welles  on 
Seward,  387,  388 

Wells,  William,  as  to  Bank  bill,  8 

West  Florida,  21 

Weston,  Missouri,  meeting  of  resi 
dents  of  Platte  County,  414 

Westport,  Missouri,  meeting  of 
Whitman  colonists,  316 

Wheeling,  West  Virginia,  116 

Whig  party,  appearance,  38, 104 ;  ac 
quisition  of  name,  279,  281,  282; 
significance  of  its  composition  and 
principles,  282,  283 ;  relation  to 
Gordon's  independent  treasury 
proposal,  285 ;  opposes  indepen 
dent  treasury  bill  of  1840,  285, 
286  ;  convention  of  1839,  286 ;  elec 
tion  of  1840,  286 ;  Bank  bill  and 
tariff  bill  as  party  measures,  286  ; 
friction  between  Congress  and 
President,  286,  287  ;  relation  of  its 
principle  to  the  new  question  of 
slavery  and  territorial  extension, 
287,  288;  address  on  Texas  an 
nexation,  303 ;  convention  nomi 
nates  Clay  for  presidency,  309 ; 
position  on  Folk's  first  message, 
324,  325  ;  attitude  to  Mexican  War, 
330;  piatform  of  1848,  345;  the 
Clayton  bill,  346,  347  ;  election  of 
1848,  348,  349 ;  convention  of  1852, 


376 ;  tendency  to  division  of  party, 
376,  377;  election  of  1852,  377; 
controversy  over  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  391 ;  vote  on  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  398,  399;  vote  in  House  on 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  404,  405; 
meaning  of  the  vote,  405,  406 ;  as 
to  leaders  of  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany,  413  ;  effect  of  Kansas  strug 
gle,  417  ;  tendency  to  dissolution, 
417,  418 

Whitfield,  John  W.,  elected  to  Con 
gress  in  Kansas,  417  ;  credentials 
accepted,  418  ;  contest  for  seat  in 
House  of  Representatives,  433, 
433  ;  leads  Missourians  in  Kansas, 
441 

Whitman,  Marcus,  missionary  to 
Oregon,  315  ;  settlement,  and  visit 
to  Tyler,  315  ;  helped  by  the  Ad 
ministration,  315,  316  ;  the  Ore 
gon  colony,  315 

Wick,  William  W.,  moves  amend 
ment,  341 ,  342 

Willuns,  William,  reports  "Force 
j  Bill,"  233,  234  ;  bill  used  in  argu 
ment,  236;  attitude  of  Calhoun, 
236;  bill  passed  by  Senate,  237; 
and  by  House,  237,  238  ;  approved, 
238  ;  "  Force  Bill  "  considered,  240 

Williams,  J.  M.  S.,  in   emigrant  aid 
!     work,  411 ;  conference  with  Ho  bin- 
son,  413 

Wilmot,  David,  moves  amendment, 

[  335 ;  passed  by  House,  335 ;  no 
action  in  Senate,  336  ;  amendment 
again  passed  by  House,  336  (.see 
Upham,  William)  ;  motion  for 
amendment  of  Wilmot  proviso, 
341,  343;  the  proviso  and  the 
Whig  platform  of  1848,  345  ;  the 
proviso  in  Berrien's  speech,  352  ; 
the  proviso  in  abolitionist  de 
mands,  357 

Wilson,  Henry,  meets  Robinson  at 
I     Lawrence,  463  ;  urges  new  census 
for  Kansas,  463 

Wisconsin,  Commonwealth  of,  vote 
on  Kansas  -  Nebraska  bill,  299; 
early  Republican  party  in,  418 

Wise,  Henry  A. ,  demand  as  to  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia,  257 ;  doctrine 
on  Texan  annexation,  302;  con 
nection  of  speech  with  President's 
policy,  303 

Witan,  263 
I  Wood,  S.  N.,  Jones  serves  writ  on, 


544 


INDEX 


433 ;  as  to 
435 


'treason  indictment," 


Woodbury,  Charles  Levi,  connection 

with  Sims  case,  373 
Woodbury,  Levi,  beginning  of  Bank 

trouble,  191 
Woodson,  Daniel,  Acting-Governor 

of  Kansas  Territory,  425;  super  - 


tion  of  August  25,  444,  445  ;  orders 
Cooke  to  attack  Topeka,  445 

s.  Georgia  [6  Peters,  515], 


Worcesteri  Samuel  A    Delation  of 
Georgia  statute,  218,  219  ;  case  of 
Worcester  against  Georgia,  219 
Worcester,  Massachusetts,  home  of 
,  Eli  Thayer,  408 

seded    by     Shannon,    427;    again  j  Wright,  William,  not  voting  on  Kan- 
Acting-Governor,  444 ;  proclama-  '     sas-Nebraska  bill,  398 


- 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


- 


JEC23196S76* 

HE 

DEC  Ife'GG  "11  AM 


161976 


APR-4  78 


a  oik    MAY  8  1 


LOAN  DEPT.     R  =:CO 


^r^T- 


MSTOl989 


•    ;p 


LD  21A-60m-10,'65 
(F7763slO)476B 


CIRGULAIIOM 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


VB  44857 
U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


COOSE781fl5 


I 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


